The Madras High Court Bench here has refrained from prosecuting a 71-year-old former government servant, for having used a fake promissory note to file a cheque bounce case against a woman, after he apologised to the court and pleaded for leniency since he was a heart patient.
Justice S. Nagamuthu accepted the submission of P. Krishnamoorthy of Tiruchi that he was willing to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500 for having wasted the time of the court by preferring an appeal against the woman’s acquittal from the case filed on the basis of the fake document.
Pay cost to school
The judge directed the appellant to pay the money to the Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School for Visually Challenged at Puthur in Tiruchi district and directed the school management to utilise the money for stitching school uniforms and supplying them to the needy students.
“The said amount shall be exhausted in full for the said purpose and after having utilised the same for the said purpose in full, a report should be submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The Registry shall list this matter on June 4 for recording compliance,” the judge ordered.
Recalling the history of the case, he said that the appellant had filed the cheque bounce case before a judicial magistrate court in Tiruchi in 2008, contending that the accused woman had borrowed Rs. 6 lakh from him in 2005 at an annual interest rate of 24 per cent.
She had reportedly issued a cheque to him for Rs. 9.5 lakh in 2008. But when he presented the cheque in the bank, it got returned on the ground that the account was closed long back.
Hence, he chose to prosecute the woman on the strength of a promissory note reportedly executed by her.
However, the woman took a defence that the complainant had misused a cheque issued by her with respect to another loan which was discharged much earlier.
She disputed the genuineness of her signature on the promissory note and examined a handwriting expert to prove her claim.
The Magistrate accepted the contention and acquitted her from the case on February 23 this year and hence the present appeal.
Concurring with the view taken by the Magistrate, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said that there was nothing on record to prove the genuineness of the promissory note.
He added that the appellant was liable to be prosecuted under Section 195 (fabricating false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code but he desisted from subjecting him to such an enquiry since the appellant apologised and pleaded for mercy.
