Koena Mitra, the original ‘Saki Saki’ girl, has landed in a major legal trouble. The actress has been convicted by a metropolitan magistrate's court in a cheque bouncing case. As per a report in Mumbai Mirror, Koena was sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months, earlier this month. Reportedly, Koena was asked to pay Rs 4.64 lakh, of which Rs 1.64 lakh was the interest component. The case was registered after a complaint was lodged against Koena by model Poonam Sethi.
Sethi filed the case against Koena Mitra in 2013 after her cheque bounced for “want of funds”. As per the details of the case, Koena borrowed a sum of Rs 22 lakh over a period of time. When it came to the repayment of the loan, Koena offered Sethi a cheque worth 3 lakh, which was later dishonoured by the bank.
The model then sent a legal notice to Koena, dated July 19, 2013. When Koena failed to repay the amount at this stage also, Sethi filed a court complaint in October, 2013. During the hearing, Mitra denied all the allegations and feneded herself by saying that the complainant stole her cheques. She had reportedly further argued that Sethi was lending money illegally. To this, the court held that the arguments were mutually contradicting.
Also Read: Koena Mitra is not happy with the new version of Saki Saki from Batla House, calls it a ‘mess’
''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 afterthought and taken only to evade the liability,'' the court, as per the same report, observed.
''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,'' the report quoted Mitra as saying.