Delhi District Court
Ram Narain vs . Rekha Jain on 24 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH, MM-IV (East)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.C. No. : 395/14
Offence Complained of : 138 N.I.ACT
Date of commission of Offence : 20.03.2007
Unique Case I.D. No. : 02402R0360782010
JUDGMENT
RAM NARAIN VS. REKHA JAIN Sh. Ram Narain s/o Sh. Bal Kishan Bajaj r/o 32-A, Madhu Vihar, Gali no. 1-2, Delhi .................... COMPLAINANT Smt. Rekha Jain w/o Sh. Ved Prakash Jain r/o Plot No. A-32, Madhu Vihar, Gali No. 1-2, Delhi-92.
................................ACCUSED
Date of Institution : 25.04.2007
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving judgment/order : 28.11.2014
Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2014
Final order : CONVICTED
Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The present case is a complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (henceforth referred to as "N.I. Act"). In brief the contention of Complainant Sh.Ram Narain is that the he is related to accused Rekha Jain who was undergoing a bad phase of her life since her son namely Sanjeev Jain had met with an accident in the last week of August,2006 and was in dire need of money for the treatment of her son. Seeing the plight of the accused the complainant gave a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant and later on again gave a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to her in two installments in the month of October and November 2006. As per the complainant, in discharge of the abovesaid liability the accused gave a C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.1 of 15 cheque of Rs.2,95,000/- bearing no. 525175 dated 8.03.2007 drawn upon Syndicate Bank, DTC Depot, Patparganj, Delhi to the complainant. However the said cheque got dishonoured on presentation with complainant's bank and was communicated to complainant vide Cheque return memo of Bank dt. 20.03.2007 with remarks "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter the complainant sent a statutory legal notice dt. 22.03.2207 to the accused through Registered A.D and UPC demanding payment but the same was received back unserved with the remarks of postal authority that the accused has avoided to take the delivery of letter. However,UPC was duly delivered. But despite service of legal notice, no payment was made by accused to the complainant within the prescribed period of 15 days . Subsequently, the complainant filed the present case in the court of Ld. ACMM (E) and the case was assigned to the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dt. 25.04.2014.
2. Cognizance of offence was taken accordingly. The complainant tendered his pre-
summoning evidence by way of an Affidavit which is Ex.CW1/A. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, the original cheque is Ex.CW1/1, the Cheque Return Memo of Bank and Original Bank Advice are Ex.CW1/2 and CW1/3, the statutory legal notice is Ex.CW1/4, the original UPC receipt, postal receipt and registered A.D cover are Ex.CW1/5,CW1/6 and CW1/7. All these documents were duly placed on record by the complainant. Since on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record, prima facie offence under 138 NI Act was made out against the accused, the accused was summoned vide order dt. 27.04.2007 to face trial.
3. After appearance of accused, notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused on 22.05.2008 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was thereafter listed for CE by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
4. In CE, the complainant got examined himself as CW1 in the court and adopted his pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.CW1/A and also relied on other documents already exhibited by him during pre-summoning evidence which are Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7. He was duly cross examined by the defence counsel.
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.2 of 15
5. Thereafter CE was closed. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. On 21.04.2012 in which the accused stated that she did not take any loan from the complainant and did not issued any cheque in his favour. The accused stated that the present blank but signed cheque alonwith another cheque and some other papers fell down somewhere around 2 years back and she has no liability towards the complainant for the present cheque in question. The accused also denied that she ever received any legal notice from complainant. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Defence Evidence.
6. In his defence, the accused only examined total three witness including herself.
DW1 is accused herself. DW2 is Sh. Dan Vir Singh, Record Clerk at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital( also known as Irwin Hospital), DW3 is Sh. Mohd Fasiullah, Medical Reord Technician Max Balaji Hospital and DW4 is HC Shamsher Ali from PS Mandawali. The accused also exhibited and relied upon certain documents which are DW1/1-1/5, DW1/XC1,DW2/1 and DW3/1. Thereafter the defence evidence was closed on 08.07.2014.
7. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed by both sides. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that in view of the documentary evidence on record and the statutory presumptions existing in favour of complainant u/s 118 (a) and 139 of the N.I.Act, the case against the accused stands proved. He also stated that testimony of complainant as well as other documentary evidence on record have clearly established that the accused took loan from the complainant. Besides he also controverted the defences raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and argued that the accused deserves to be convicted.
8. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has argued that the accused did not took any loan from the complainant nor did she issued any cheque in favour of the complainant. The present cheque was in fact a lost cheque which has been misused by the complainant. As per the Ld. Defence Counsel the accused has rebutted the presumptions existing against her. The Ld defence counsel has raised following points to fortify his cliam:
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.3 of 15 a.) Firstly, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that it is a case of the complainant that he gave a total sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- to the accused since her son met with an accident and she was in dire need of money. However, in his complaint he did not mentioned when did he firstly gave Rs.75,000/- to the complainant. Even in his cross-examination he deposed that he do not remember when did he gave money to the complainant. He simply mentioned that the money was given in installments in the month of october and November,2006 without mentioning the exact date. Surprisingly, neither any loan agreement was prepared by the complainant nor did he charged any interest from the accused. Even the present complainant as well as his evidence is silent on the point of interest. No payment or acknowledgment receipt of loan amount was placed on record by the complainant. Moreover, though the complainant claims that he helped the accused for treatment of her injured son but during his cross-examination he was not even aware of date of his death. Further, the statement of the complainant that he borrowed a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- from his brother-in-law Sanjeev Chugh, Rs. 50,000/- from his father and arranged remaining amount from his close relatives also does not appears to be convincing as no such witnesses were examined by him to prove this fact. The contradiction in the testimony of complainant where he first says that the money was not given from his own funds and later on his saying that he gave Rs.75,000/- to the accused from his own fund, also falsifies the claim of the complainant. Infact the statement of the complainant itself proves that he was not capable of advancing such loan which further proves the fact that the present complaint is totally false. As per Ld. Defence counsel the whole story of the complainant is totally unrelieable and untrustworthy. The Ld. Defence counsel has also placed reliance on "K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surendran, 2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 371 SC" to support his argument.
b.) Secondly, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that though the complainant has stated the loan was given for the purpose of helping the accused in treatment of her injured son, however, all the payments of medical expenditure incurred in the treatment were born by the accused herself as stand proves from the record of her Bank passbook which is Ex. DW1/4. Further, the statement of DW2 which proves that no fee was charged as it was a govt. hospital and of DW3 as per which the C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.4 of 15 total hospital expenditure was just Rs.33,823/- itself proves that there was no need for the accused to borrow any loan from the complainant and that too to an extent of Rs.2,95,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Further, as per the complainant the loan amount was given in the month of October and November,2006. However, when as per Ex. DW1/3 the son of the accused had already expired on 5.11.2006 then why the accused would have taken such loan from the complainant when she had already lost her son. Further, the previous litigation between the family of both the sides which also stands proves through Mark'A' further makes the story of the complainant unreliable that he has advanced any loan to the accused.
c.) Thirdly, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that Ex. DW1/1 and DW1/2 also proves the fact that the accused had already lost the present cheque in question as well another cheque alongwith some other important papers and also informed the police authorities regarding the same. Evidence of DW4 also substantiate this fact. The accused has categorically stated in her testomony that she did not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant and the present cheque in question infact is the lost blank but signed cheque which has been misused by the complainant in the present case.
9. However, the Ld. Counsel for complainant has refuted all the contentions of the Ld. Defence counsel and has argued that all the contentions are baseless and without any substance. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that statutory presumptions u/s. 118(a) and 139 N.I Act are in favour of the complainant. The accused has admitted that the cheque in question was a signed cheque though he claims it to be a lost cheque. However, even as per DW1/4 this fact stand proved that all the other cheques starting from cheque bearing no.525171-80 were duly issued and got honoured in the year 2006. However, surprisingly only the present cheque which is cheque bearing no. 525175 and one another cheque which was also given to the complainant, got misplaced and that fact also came to the notice of the accused only after its presentation with the bank. Further, why the cheque in question was already signed by the accused when it was blank and why it is so that it was used so late when the other cheques of the same cheque book which were on a later no.
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.5 of 15 in the series had already been used by the accused. Why did the accused kept only these blank but signed cheques with her and later on claimed to be lost, which the complainant claims to be received in the discharge of legally enforceable debt. Moreover, DW1/1 as well as DW1/2 itself proves that initially the complainant did not mentioned about the lost of any cheque or cheque book and only on 23.03.2007 the complainant reported about the missing of cheque book and which can not be denied to be an afterthought to create false evidence in her support as in the meantime she had already come to know about the dishonour of cheque since as per CW1/2 the cheque in question already got dishonoured on 20.03.2007 due to 'insuffiency of funds' in the account of accused. Further, the testimony of DW2, DW3 and DW4 also does not prove anything so as to be said to be assisting the accused in discharging her burden of rebutting the presumption as existing against her.
Thus, it has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that accused has totally failed to discharge its burden of rebutting the presumption existing against him u/s. 118(a) and 139 of N.I Act and accordingly the case of the complainant stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. I have heard final arguments and also perused the evidence on record. As far as offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act is concerned, there are five essential ingredients of the offence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510", which are (i) drawing of the cheque, (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank of the payee, (iii) return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (iv) giving of notice to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. In an another case titled as Jugesh Sehgal vs Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC 683, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again re-iterated that -
"It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled: (i) a person must have drawn a C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.6 of 15 cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account; (ii) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; (iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice; Being cumulative, it is only when all the afore-mentioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act."
On the basis of final arguments led by both the parties, the first question which is for consideration before the court is whether the accused has issued the present cheque in question in favour of the complainant or not ?
To prove this first of all the complainant has alleged that since the cheque bears the signature of the accused and which is also admitted by the accused as she herself has admitted that the cheque in question was a signed cheque the presumptions under Sec.118(a) as well as 139 of N.I Act exists in favour of the complainant and it is for the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued by her and further that it was not issued towards discharge of any liability. Per contra the stand of the accused is that she did not issued the present cheque in question in favour of the complainant and rather it was her blank but signed cheque which got lost and later on misused by the complainant. To support her claim the accused C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.7 of 15 has placed on record two documents/police complaints Ex. DW1/1 and DW1/2. However, perusal of DW1/1 shows that the said complaint/information was given to the police on 11.03.2007 and it was with respect to missing of some purse on 10.03.2007 belonging to the complainant which was containing some important papers of her like LIC policy, Credit card etc,. However, this complaint is totally silent about the loss of present cheque or any other cheque or cheque book. DW1/2 is another complaint dated 23.3.2007 which though does not bears the signature of the accused reveals additional information about the missing of some cheque book. DW4 is HC Shamsher Ali which deposed about the registration of complaint dated 11.3.2007 Ex.DW1/1. However, he deposed that he can not say whether complaint Ex. DW1/2 dated 23.3.2007 was received in PS Mandawali or not. It is pertinent to mention here that cheque in question Ex.CW1/1 bears its date of issuance as 8.3.2007 and as per Ex. CW1/2 the same got dishonoured and this fact was intimated to complainant on 20.3.2007. It is very surprising on the part of the accused that why she was carrying blank signed cheque in her purse without any need as she never disclosed anywhere that she is into any business or that she needed the same for any other purpose. It is highly unimaginable to expect from an ordinary man that he will carry a cheque book with him especially if he is not into any commercial field or business. Further, how did that lost cheque come into the possession of complainant only when the accused did not expressed any doubt about the role of complainant in the incident of such missing of purse, is also another unexplained circumstance by the accused. The accused herself deposed that her purse got lost when she was roaming in some Balko Market and she did not stated anything about the presence of the complainant at that place. On the contrary, the absence of information about the missing of cheque book in Ex. DW1/1 and later on giving such information in DW1/2 (which itself stands not corroborated in view of testimony of DW4 ) raises serious suspicion on the story of the accused and the fact that such complaints were made after the date of issuance of cheque and its dishonour further aggravates such suspicion. Even during the trial also the accused did not moved any application for any expert opinion for matching her handwriting with the handwriting on the cheque. Hence, from the abovesaid deliberation the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the cheque in question was issued by the accused as she has totally failed to C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.8 of 15 discharge her burden and to prove that it was actually a blank signed cheque which she lost on 10.3.2007 as alleged by her.
Now we comes to the second question,i.e,Whether the cheque was presented within the period of validity?
Perusal of the record reveals that the cheque in question which is Ex. CW1/1 is dated 08.03.2007 which got dishonoured vide cheque returning memo which is Ex. CW1/2 dated 20/3/2007 which is not disputed by the accused, clearly shows that the cheque has been presented within period of its validity i.e. within six months from the date of issuance of the cheque.
Now the third question is Whether the Cheque in question was dishonored?
In the instant case the complainant has got exhibited the cheque returning memo which is Ex. CW1/2. The dishonor of the cheque in question has not been disputed by the accused nor the cheque returning memo has been challenged by the accused. Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record it stands duly proved that the cheque in question was dishonored vide cheque returning memo dated 20/3/2007which is Ex. CW1/2 with the reason "Funds Insufficient".
Now we comes to the fourth and main question which has arisen in the present case ,i.e, whether the cheque in issue was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or not?
It is the case of the complainant that since the cheque in question bears the signature of the complainant the presumptions under Sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I Act shall exist in his favour and it shall be presumed that cheque was issued for consideration and the burden was on the accused to rebut such presumptions in which she has totally failed. Per contra the accused has submitted that she has C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.9 of 15 successfully discharged her burden of rebutting such presumptions. However, before proceeding with appreciation of evidence it would be appropriate to enunciate the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to prove the liability of the accused in a case of dishonour of cheque. It is a settled principle of law that in criminal matters the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle admits no exception. However, at the same time, there are certain presumptions which run in favour of complainant in matters u/s 138 of the N.I. Act as laid down in Sec 118 (a) and Sec 139 of the Act. The accused needs to rebut those presumptions against him first of all in order to prove his innocence. However at the same time, the burden of proof on accused in rebutting the same is merely preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases. So, for rebutting these presumptions, the accused merely needs to raise a probable and reasonable defence. This defence can be raised by the accused by leading his evidence on the point or by relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant. Whether or not the accused has managed to impeach the complainant's version, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
It has been held in Hitan P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 that:
" Because both Sec 138 and 139 require that the Court 'shall presume' the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, .............., it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption has been established."
Infact it has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 that "the presumption mandated by sec 139 of the Act indeed includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability." However at the same time it has also been observed in the above judgement of Rangappa (Supra) that the presumption "is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested."
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.10 of 15 Now coming back to present case, in order to rebut the statutory presumption existing against the accused the accused has first of all relied on the complaint of the complainant itself and has refuted his claim of loan by stating that though the complainant has alleged that he advanced a loan of Rs.2,95,000/- to her(though alleged to be in there instalments),however, he has not placed on record any document or any other payment/acknowledge slip to prove such thing. Neither the accused prepared any loan agreement nor did he surprisingly charged any interest from the accused for such loan. Secondly, the accused has placed has placed on record two documents Ex. DW1/1 and DW1/2 also examined DW4 to prove that the cheque in question was actually a blank signed but lost cheque. Thirdly, in order to rebut the statutory presumptions the accused has also examined DW2 and DW3 also relied on DW1/3 & DW1/4 to prove that the expenses of treatment of her injured son were borne by her only and paid through her account and that there was no need to take any loan from the complainant as the total expenditure at Max Hospital was just around Rs.33823/- and the other hospital where her son was later on shifted being a Govt. Hospital did not charged anything for the treatment. The accused further asserts that moreover when her son had already expired on 5.11.2006 there was no need for her to take loan from the complainant in the month of November, 2006 as alleged by the complainant.
However, the court is of the opinion that none of the defence raised by the accused actually helps the accused in discharging her burden to rebut the statutory presumptions as discussed above. The reasons for such opinion is that firstly, both Ex.DW1/1 and DW1/2 are ulterior to issuance of cheque and its dishonour and moreover DW1/1 is totally silent with respect to missing of any cheque book. Further, the unexplained circumstances by the accused, i.e,why she was carrying a blank signed cheque book with her and how did it reached in the hands of complainant when there is not a single whisper in the whole testimony of the accused that she saw the complainant also roaming in Balko Market or near that place where her purse got lost, also makes her story unreliable. Moreover, even DW4 also did not supported the accused with respect to Ex.DW1/2. Secondly, the testimony of DW2 and DW3 are also of no help to the accused in discharging of her burden as both of them deposed that they are not aware of the other medical C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.11 of 15 test/ medicine which the doctors would have advised/asked the accused to conduct/purchase from the market on her own. DW2 even did not supported the accused in her claim that the payment of bills/medical expenditure at Max Hospital was made by her. Further, the claim of the accused that she did not had cordial relations with the family of the complainant due to past litigation which she alleged to have won and is exhibited as document Mark'A' and therefore it is impossible for the complainant to advance such alleged loan is also not very convincing particularly in view of the fact that such litigation was not between her the complainant and rather it was between the accused and father of the complainant which also got settled later on with mutual consent of both parties as clear from Ex. DW1/XC. Moreover, EX. DW1/3 though proves that son of the complainant expired on 5.11.2006, however, that fact itself does not prove that no money was given to the accused. Thirdly, admittedly the complainant has not placed on record any loan agreement or other payment slip but in view of the statutory presumptions it was for the accused to rebut them and raise a probable defence. However, in view of the above said deliberation the does not finds that the accused has succeeded in raising a probable defence and to prove that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any enforceable debt.
The fifth question which is for considertion before the court is whether Service of the legal notice of demand was made upon accused?
In the instant case, the complainant has specifically stated in his affidavit of examination in chief that the he got issued the legal notice of demand dated 22.03.2007 which is Ex. CW1/4 and it was sent to the accused on the same day vide UPC and Registered Post and receipt is Ex. CW1/5&6. Though the accused denied in her statement under sec.313 Cr.P.C. that she received any notice from the complainat but later on during her cross-examination at the stage of Defence Evidence she accepted that she did received the legal notice and also replied to the same vide reply dated 16.04.2007 through her counsel. Hence this fact also stand proved.
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.12 of 15 Now the last question which is for considertion before the court is that whether the accused/Drawer of the cheque has failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of said notice.
In the instant case the complainant has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that despite service of legal demand notice the accused has failed to make payment of cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice. In my above discussion it is proved that the legal demand notice Ex CW1/4 was duly served upon the accused. Accused has not lead any evidence to prove that she has made the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal demand notice. Considering the entire evidence placed on record, it stands duly proved that the accused has failed to make the payment of the Cheque in question within 15 days from the receipt of the legal demand notice Hence, in view of the facts, evidence lead by both the parties coupled with my discussion above, I hereby hold that the complainant has been able to prove and substantiate its allegation against the accused and all the ingredients for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act have been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Rekha Jain is hereby held guilty for the offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Copy of this judgment be provided to the accused free of cost.
Announced in open court on Dated: 24/12/2014 (BALWINDER SINGH) MM(East)/KKD/24/12/2014.
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.13 of 15
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH,
MM (East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.C. No. 395/14
U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
24.12.2014
Present:- Complainant with counsel.
Convict Rekha Jain with Counsel.
Today the matter is fixed for arguments on the point of sentence.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. It is argued on behalf of the Complainant that convict Rekha has not only took undue advantage of the complainant but totally ignored that he helped her during her bad times. The convict intentionally cheated the Complainant and usurped his hard earned money. In these circumstances, he prayed that a sentence of maximum period of imprisonment should be awarded to the convict alongwith compensation of double the cheque amount to be paid to the complainant.
2. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. counsel of the convict that the convict is a poor woman and has also already lost her only son few years back. She is also not a previous convict for any offence. So, considering the above facts, a lenient view be taken by the court in sentencing the convict.
3. Arguments heard from both sides. As far as sentencing guidelines are concerned, in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220 the Supreme Court held that : "Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime."
4. In State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that : "Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.14 of 15 it was executed or committed etc. The Courts should impose a punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It is the nature and gravity of the crime, and not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on social order in many cases may be in reality, a futile exercise."
5. Coming to the facts of the case, the instant Act had been enacted by the legislature to promote public confidence in Negotiable instruments. An offence of dishonour of cheque directly strikes at the root of that confidence and shakes the faith of people in such instruments. In the instant case in hand, the convict is step mother in law of the complainant who helped her during her bad times when she was in need of money for the treatment of her ailing son. However, instead of considering and appreciating the goodwill of complainant in helping her, not only she refused to return the amount taken by her but also failed to honour the cheque issued by her in discharge of her liability. The convict not only breached the trust of complainant but also made him to file the present case and to attend the court for around 7 years to seek redressal of his grievance.
6. Hence, considering all the above facts and the rival submissions of both sides, convict Rekha Jain is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,90,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Keeping in view the amount of fine imposed upon the accused a period of one month is given to the convict to comply with the order. Accordingly, bail bond of convict are extended till 24.01.2015.
Copy of this order be given free of cost to the convict.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court
on Dated: 24.12.2014
(BALWINDER SINGH)
MM(East)/KKD/24.12.2014
C.C. No. 395/14 Ram Narain Vs Rekha Jain Page No.15 of 15