It’s been long since we saw Koena Mitra on the silver screen and now she’s making headlines for various reasons lately. She was recently in the news for criticizing Nora Fatehi’s ‘O Saki Saki’ version from John Abraham’s Batla House. Now, the news is that apparently, she is unable to repay money to a friend. She has been condemned under a fraud case and is sentenced to six months of jail.
A metropolitan magistrate’s court in Andheri has convicted Koena under a cheque bouncing case worth lacs. Reportedly, she was supposed to pay 4.64 lacs including the interest of 1.64 lacs but she failed. She gave a cheque worth 3 lacs and it got bounced and was convicted under the fraud case.
According to the reports by Mumbai Mirror, “Mitra borrowed Rs 22 lakh from Sethi over a period of time. During the repayment of this loan, Mitra gave a cheque of Rs 3 lakh to Sethi, which was dishonoured by the bank. Sethi first sent a legal notice to Mitra on July 19, 2013 (mandatory as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the complainant can take action). Mitra, however, failed to repay the amount even at this stage. Sethi then filed a complaint in the court on October 10, 2013. During the hearing, Mitra denied all allegations and sought to defend herself mainly on two grounds: that Sethi did not have the financial capacity to lend Rs 22 lakh, and that she stole her cheques. The magistrate, however, did not accept her defence. The magistrate, however, observed that Mitra’s argument about Sethi’s financial capacity could not be accepted and that Mitra had also contended that she was lending money illegally. The court held that the two contentions were mutually contradictory. On Mitra’s second contention, the court held that she could not prove that Sethi had stolen her cheques. The court added that Mitra did not mention this allegation in her reply to the notice sent by Sethi, neither did she take any further action.”
Going forward they mentioned, “Furthermore, in the present matter, said cheque is not dishonoured on the count of ‘payment stopped by drawer’. It is dishonoured on the count of ‘funds insufficient’. If at all, it is presumed that complainant took the cheques from the accused’s house, which was blank and misused them, then the option of stopping the payment was very well available with the accused. But she did not do anything like this. Thus, the conduct of accused prior and subsequent to the dishonoured of said cheque constrained me to hold that this defence is an afterthought and taken only to evade the liability.”
But when the newspaper got in touch with the actress she said, “The case is totally false and I have been framed in the matter. During the final argument, my lawyer could not be present in the court and hence my side was not heard and the order was passed without my hearing. We will be challenging the judgement in the higher court and my lawyers are in the process of appealing.”