NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2012 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 10537 OF 2010]

B. CHANDRAMATHI … APPELLANT

Versus

N. PRAKASH … RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal,  by  grant  of  special  leave,  is  directed  

against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2008 passed by  

the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  at  Bangalore  dismissing  

Criminal  Revision  Petition  No.639  of  2007  filed  by  the  

appellant.  

3. The appellant-accused obtained a loan of Rs.4 lakhs on  

22.7.2002 from the respondent-complainant on execution of

promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest  

at 18% per annum.   On 23.10.2002, the appellant issued a  

cheque  bearing  No.  069725  for  Rs.2  lakhs  towards  the  

repayment of the loan amount. When the said cheque was  

presented  to  the  banker  the  same was  returned  with  an  

endorsement “Insufficient Funds.” The respondent served a  

legal  notice  upon the appellant  on  30.10.2002 and called  

upon her to pay the cheque amount. The appellant replied to  

the said notice on 12.12.2010 and sought three months time  

to repay the amount. She did not repay the amount. On the  

basis  of  the  bounced  cheque,  the  respondent  filed  a  

complaint bearing No. CC 1217/03 before the Principal JMFC  

Court, Davanagere.  Learned JMFC convicted the appellant  

for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments  

Act and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year  

and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.5,000/-.   Learned  JMFC  further  

directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-  

to the respondent.  On appeal learned Additional Sessions  

Judge confirmed the order of the trial court.  The Criminal  

2

Revision Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the  

High Court  by the impugned order.   The High Court  thus  

confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.  

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.  

On  11.3.2011  a  statement  was  made  by  learned  

counsel for the appellant that the appellant has deposited  

the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,20,000/-. A copy of  

the  money  receipt  dated  15.11.2010  issued  by  the  JMFC  

Court,  Davanagere was filed  in  support  of  the statement.  

On that day, fresh notice was issued to the respondent to  

show-cause  why  the  Special  Leave  Petition  may  not  be  

disposed of by passing appropriate orders at the stage of  

admission after hearing both the sides. Despite service of  

notice,  the  respondent  has  neither  appeared  before  this  

Court  in  person  nor  has  he  engaged  any  lawyer.   We,  

therefore, proceed to dispose of this appeal.  

5. We have carefully perused the impugned order.  The  

High  Court  has  confirmed  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  

3

courts  below.  The  High  Court’s  order  cannot  be  

characterized as perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant  

was unable to persuade us to take any other view of the  

matter.   The  appellant  admitted  her  signature  on  the  

cheque. She sought time to repay the amount.  She did not  

enter the witness box. In the circumstances, in our opinion,  

no interference is necessary with the order of conviction.  

6. However, we find from the record that the appellant is  

about 51 years of age. She is a poor widow who is eking out  

a living for herself and her family by making jowar rotis and  

selling them.   She is the only earning member of her family.  

She  has  two  children  to  look  after.   It  appears  that  the  

appellant  is  unwell.  She  is  stated  to  have  suffered  from  

depression.   

7. As of today, the appellant has undergone the sentence  

for a period of about 2½ months before she was released on  

bail. Considering the fact that the appellant has deposited  

the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,20,000/- and the fact  

4

that  the appellant  is  a   widow and  is   the only  earning  

member in the family and considering the fact that though  

served with notice  the respondent has not cared to appear  

in this Court,  we are of the opinion that sentence already  

undergone by her should be treated as a sentence for the  

offence  under  Section  138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  

Act.  Order  accordingly.  The  appellant  is  on  bail.  Her  bail  

bond stands discharged.  Needless to say that this order is  

passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.  

8. Appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 20, 2012.

5