The magistrate court has observed that film director Ram Gopal Varma failed to make payment even though he was given 'sufficient opportunity,' and therefore he was required to be punished to "deter human tendency to handover a cheque without an intention to honour the same." While the magistrate court in Andheri on January 21 convicted and sentenced Varma to three months’ simple imprisonment in a cheque bounce case, the detailed order was made available on Friday. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in Andheri, Y P Pujari had convicted Varma under provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and had also directed him to pay Rs 3.72 lakh compensation to the complainant in the case within three months. The complaint was filed by a partnership firm called 'Shree' through its partner Mahesh Chandra Mishra against Varma's production company 'Ramgopal Varma Penumatsa'. Advocate Rajesh Patel for the complainant had claimed that they had provided hard disks to Varma from February to March 2018 and had also raised tax invoices of Rs 2.38 lakh for the supply to HIS company. The complainant said that while a cheque dated June 1, 2018 was issued to it, when it was deposited, the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. After Varma was informed about the same, he had issued another cheque on August 22, 2018. However, that too was dishonoured. In the detailed reasoned order, the magistrate said that “it would not be illegal to pass the judgment of conviction in absence of the accused” under provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that empowered it to do so. It said it was proper to do so where the “accused is bent upon to cause delay rather exercising his rights for defence.” “Admittedly the accused was given sufficient opportunity to make payment of the cheque from notice of the complainant till conclusion of trial but accused failed to make it. Therefore, in order to deter the human tendency to handover cheque without intending to honour the same, the punishment is required to impose upon the accused rather than giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act (that provides releasing offenders on probation or after admonition),” the order reads. The court also noted that it “did not find any material” brought by Varma to show that the cheque did not bear his signature and was not issued by him. The magistrate said he did not reply to demand notice issued by complainant. Therefore, he failed to avail first opportunity available with him to raise his defence. It said the partnership firm 'duly proved' that Varma had issued the subject cheque from his account in favour of the complainant towards the legally enforceable debt and sentence awarded to Varma was "proper and justified." Meanwhile, Varma has approached the sessions court against sentence imposed by magistrate and the matter is likely to be heard on March 4.
