Mumbai: The Bandra Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court has come to the aid of a 72-year-old retired government staff nurse who had filed a cheque bounce case against a man she shared a mother-son relationship with. The court directed the accused to repay double the borrowed amount and also sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment.
Champa Shantaram Pol, a 72-year-old retired staff nurse, had alleged that her neighbor, Mr. Velmurugan, borrowed Rs 10 lakh from her in 2014 for his daughter’s medical treatment.
She claimed that the loan was partially given via cheques and partially in cash, with an agreement that it would be repaid within a year. In repayment, Velmurugan issued two cheques of Rs 5 lakh each, dated October 4 and October 10, 2016. Both cheques were dishonored due to “insufficient funds” in his account.
Following this, Pol sent a legal notice on October 13, 2016, demanding repayment. Velmurugan replied to the notice on October 27, 2016, but refused to make the payment, which led to the filing of the present complaint.
During the trial, Velmurugan argued that the cheques were post-dated security cheques issued for a loan taken at an “exorbitant interest rate.” He claimed to have already paid Rs 3.6 lakh as interest, allegedly at Rs 30,000 per month. However, the court rejected this defense, observing that no credible evidence was presented to support these claims.
The case, filed in 2016, had been pending for eight years before reaching final conclusion. The court acknowledged that the complainant, a senior citizen suffering from multiple medical ailments, had the right to a speedy trial. As per Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, such cases must be concluded within six months from the commencement of the hearing.
While delivering the judgment, the court remarked: “While passing sentence, the court has to consider the objective of the Act and the societal impact of the punishment. The main purpose of the Act is to maintain faith in financial transactions done through negotiable instruments. The accused is liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. He has delayed the trial. Showing leniency would send a wrong message to society and encourage defrauders to misuse negotiable instruments as tools for delay. People would lose trust in transacting via such instruments. The complainant is entitled to compensation for the delayed payment of the dishonored cheques.”
