IN THE 21:31; COURT OF MRNATAKA, %
DATED THIS THE gm DAY OF' AEEI1;-I 204$: T i
BEFORE
THE HON-'BLE ms; ;I{}S'FiGE R.B;j1~;:';4g:I«:%k~¥ 5; %
CRIMKNAL REVISION Pmxwiem M0358 013' 2005
EETWEEN
Sn1t.SWarnaDwa1'aka:1ath, " ' '
D.Swa1na1_aL§1a.,_ '
W/0 _
Aged A
12/31: NO.74,--. 5, '
\FictoI'i21'I;zs.3:;3ij;.t, 'A --
VIII Ciiass, .B§21'Ii§?j??.}.G1"T€.".._ -- '
: Petitiener
(B3-* S (i'§w§.1{en1'g3ég§;r;:$W'aia and ASSC}CiEfi;€3S, Advocates)
V A. ..... .. V
A&1+SoV%kn0v"m_ 'fihagyalakshmi,
Wig) Rag]1_upafl1y,
Aged ai:-gm. 66 years,
"R/at N.Q_f3'E'6, Victoria Layout,
"'.I1{'...ross, Srinivasa Nilayarn,
.B:3,11_g7a}01*e.
: Respondent
” m'(HBy Sri. C.I{.Am11’ce, Advocate)
9uQ,\ moi LL.”
This C1’imi1*1a1 Revision Petitian is f11e{i”L1I1d,fe1′ Seciion
39′? and 401 Cr.P.C. prayizag tofiet asf.de”thc2. Judg.11c1*1’£»_
and sentence passed by fiihc “F2:-rst. ‘1’:z’a(;1s:._(,)g:jt.£1’t–‘VI,
Bangalore in C1*1.A.N0.636/2004 dated ‘=.14~~3–2′{}Cr5
Judgmcnt. and sentence passeda_ by 11111: A.C.I9E.M’.»,
Bangalore, in C.C.N0.25834[..1998v»dat6dd”,_13%ff’~Q.0€)4 and
acquit the petitioner.
This petition coming day the
Court, made the foHow*m.g:, -._ ; _
The pgetitidifieif/*a_¢z:}_1s;ed~._”ii?’ vconvicted for an offence
pu111sha!q1C of the N1. Act and is
sexlteziged. ‘I:1%S.6O,O{}O/– in default to pay
{me he iS”=djrc¢té5d_ u.fi§Eei°go 8.1 for 3. period of one year.
_ Out.;%§’£”VtI1s?: find? a 511111 of Rs.3{),OOO/ -« is directed to
1:36 –p_a;idV is ‘flje _COJ.}1p1f;1i11a1}t as co111pen5atio11 by an order
“c.);I–‘ sentence passed by the XX Add1.C.M.M,
%d%sanga;ar¢d¢::y datad 1337-2004 in C.C.No.25834/1998.
V’ ‘..fThé”5;;aid order of <:onviCti.o;r1 and senterlce is confirmed by
j'dd§f11€11t dated 14-3-2005 passed by the Presiding
V '' HC)''i'i'1c61', Fast 'ih'ack Court:-VI, Baflgalore City in
<:r1.A.636/2004. .9\.QL/Lz\C1/'LLL__M.
3
2. The respondent/eoinplainant had
Rs.30,000/- as earnest moxie? t0Wi–;i1″‘dS
the site to the petitioner/accueeti ‘”ir”1.v the
Neither the site was arranged for. Azier tif1e.”.31:iGI’1ey1–.
refunded. Afi:e1* due p€1’S11aSii3;’T1:;’i»fl1€ petitierieijg issued a
cheque dated 2942- ‘i’iie teams was
presented for e11e;’1sh111e’1j;t:t:;A1f; was returned
with banker’e fu11ds’. It was
1’€plI’CS€I1’£€d€. .fe1ii:”di1u it-i1-1998 and again it
was A’ eridersenient as ‘insuflieierit
funds’ <3'11._ '2*:"2-41998.] 'Fh_e'V"baI1ker's €3I1dO1'Sf.':1}1€I1tS are
V n1ar1;:j:d'as Debit advices are marked as
fiE5'53-V.P*a4 ddddd Hififter return of the Cheque, the
esiimalailiaiat issued 3. statutory legal notice as
1 per 3§3~x.P_._'6' tereugh registered post and under Certificate of
ijestixig "ass at Ex.P.7 for having served notice t0 the
betitieinei'/accused, aelmowledgmem is produced. The
T " petitioner/accused replied the Said notice as at Ex.P.8.
3.T11e petitioI1e1’/accused took an untéitiabiaé V’
that the cheque was not issuiééipw “ti; the-: ‘ 1*?¢§§pQ.r_1a*i§ 11t’,!
complainant and it was issu¢d_ to ‘ELIE-
one another stand taken by””L1i;5» p6tit§Onfi1xl}.=aC€;13SE3d was
that he hat} already r£§§ giste1;’VeE1@_.4v’ $ites na111e of
Bhamxalakshmi gfid to pay entirrzt
consideratiolj Bvi3..<,;g3,*a1akshn1i got the
sale: deed the advallcet monéy
givgf} of the said money so
clmque wa_s issued E'£–fiig§;a1akslm1i. This aspect of the
mattggr was 11ot.p'I'Cv€ci by exan1iI1iI1g any WitI18SS€i$. It is
records that the respondent] conlpiainant
is also K11-mm as Bhagyalakshmi. The
_ petifiolieéf/eiécuscd Claims to havv:-: issued the Chfique in
H K Lxjaizié of Bhagalakshnxi and tried to craatc a fictitiouss
-‘ ‘fillagralaksiulii’ in whese fa.v0u1′ he had executed
” “€33.16 deeds and which sale deed 215161 to be cancellecl.
A Exs.P.9 and 13.10 establish that Cllellamma @
Bllagfalakshlzli is 111a;rTied to Raghupathi. All go to
K
JLQE L\.£«L«LUL»-
establish that Bhagzalakehmi and CheBan1:ite_ are etie
the same.
4. The fact of the
the cheque Ex.P.1 in__ favotttfefv_reepeI§t1e1;}.t/ petitioner
is well established of the cheque;
Iaouneing cf the eanfte” as ‘iusufiieient
fliflds’, said facts are not
disputed…b_3f’ and on the other hand
the grep.r;d :”peti:tieI1er/accused disputing his
liability been 4V13e’g:%t1ved by both the Courts below.
_ A’ t’:1e.._a1?gnn1ents addressed in the trial Court,
etéa'”:x:ei}.._as;’tt};e..first appellate Court, that the cheque was
%:ss§”ue’d% {ts Bvtlagzaiakshxicxi and not to responderxt
I10thi1″1g more is brought on record in the
V’ ‘~~:tf’»}:tre$e11t revision petition to interfe-re with the order ef
‘ eenviction and sentencze and as such, I do not find any
‘4 “good greund to interfere with the order of the Courts
below. Hence, the followiilg: £~D'”-‘*’~”‘;”‘-*
Q RIDER
This crimixlal r::Nisio11 peg’:-,itiG1′.r is d§;siT11-ié3§sée:i«.7.’ x”iv’héi A’
Qrder af CO11Vi£31IiG11 and sent61″1cé’«as$-13asS€d_–.h3I.théefiaiizftgs
below as against the petiti0I1e:§’;*.acc1isc:d’ 3J.'{“§_;Cf5i)filil1€d.