Chennai: Restoring an order of the trial court, which convicted and sentenced an advocate to one year RI in a cheque bounce case, Madras High Court has said the society expects an advocate to be its guardian against state tyranny and not become a tyrant himself.
“In my opinion, whenever the news of an advocate getting involved in an offence appears in public domain, I squirm and shudder inside and slip into bouts of depression and despondency at the sorry state of affairs, because it was this noble profession that has catapulted me to this exalted position under the Constitution of India. Every such episode would bring down the esteem of the Bar in the eyes of the public and that would also have a cascading effect on the Bench,” said Justice P.N. Prakash while allowing an appeal from the complainant A.N. Chandru.
Pointing out that the cheque bounce case is compoundable, the judge suspended the sentence till January 15, 2018. By which time, if the accused deposits Rs 75,000 towards compensation and Rs 1 lakh towards exemplary costs to the credit of the case, the Magistrate may compound the offence and disburse the sum to the complainant. This court has devised this mechanism only to give an opportunity to the accused to avoid the ignominy of serving the sentence of imprisonment. In the event of the accused not depositing Rs 1.75 lakh on or before January 15, 2018, the trial court shall commit him to prison, the judge added.
The issue relates to a complaint filed by Chandru alleging that advocate K. Jayasankar had borrowed Rs 50,000 from him on June 15, 2005 by executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest. He also issued a cheque for Rs 60,000 towards the discharge of the loan. When the cheque was presented, it was returned for insufficient funds. Since, there was no response from the advocate for the legal notice issued by him, he approached the court.
The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate-I, Walajahpet convicted Jayasankar and sentenced him to undergo one year RI and to pay a compensation of Rs 75,000 to the complainant. Aggrieved, Jayasankar preferred an appeal and the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet acquitted him on the short ground that the service of notice on the accused was improper. Challenging the same, Chandru preferred the present appeal.
