High Court Karnataka High Court

Suresh Govind Avadankar vs Akbar Sajjansaheb Tade on 21 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Suresh Govind Avadankar vs Akbar Sajjansaheb Tade on 21 April, 2009
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
 &§QEfi:

H! mm men count or mnxargxga' 5    _
cmcnrr amen AT ynARwa£'i §%A   F. A Z n T
DATED 'mm mm 2181' DA?  'A: 
mm&RE _ .     _ .
THE Humans MR. JusT1ém#'_' r:.r§. nAa¢§;2a;o:i3§.n%VbAs
cmmman  .u3§§éI$008
BETWEEN: T A   ' by   

SURESH G0'\%TiN:3.AVADAraKAIe    u 
AGE: MAJOR; .C}'(~.--":f_'.';'-* B1}SII~$ESS  .
R/O SHIVAJI RAGAR' »    
NIPPAN-£,---TAi.;UK'3-1QHIKCDI "  V
D:S1'I£IC'i' : 8E'.1..GA?;.3I\«I_  .

 PETITIONER

(BY SR1 (3.141; .; Am&-M1,. Am.)

 ~.4§§§I§5,§R' éAqJ§m"sAHEB TADE

ma Mauazimze PARFNER 0?
Mrs BHARAT FINANCE

' V  CORPORATION (REGDJ
'AKAMGKR CHOWK, NIPANI,

'7.' T_AL"i_.JK : cmxom, DIST: BELGAUM

 RESPONDENT

” – “(By Sri. SACHIN s MAGADUM, ADV.)

§7LV”*”

2

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 65 4o1;”‘cR.I>.c.
PRAYING TO; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND .C)’R:13.E’f?_ OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.02.2093-P_.ss_s’ED” BY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-II AND ADDL. .34}. I-3E£.§G!§U–M,~.

IN CRL.A.No.200/O6,’1’HEREY DIsM:ssING.T§iE~»AI*REAL AN!)
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AIII-DURDER <;mf'IGoNvImIDN' ; "
AND SENTENCE DATED 03.093006 A. .1IN¥, c.,C.- No; '1389;98 '

PASSED BY THE JMFC, MPPANI, 'I'HEREBY COv_NVI(fFifi3'G~VTii_E

PE'I'I'I'iONER FOR THE FOFEIICDS P/u_1s,IV 13§3C1jF..N,I._A(7I'.._*

THIS PE'I'!'I'ION coMIN(I,"0N F0I2_ADMISsIDN, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE I~iQ'I-MIIAIING:

«9_..I<II.;;,,r_,2_§_;.:aII

léamcd counsel on both side is

filed and hexeundcr:

A ‘ “BdEfi 0 FOR RE$R.T_i__;_I§G 8E’l”X’LEMENT

‘V I That the above referred revision petition is

A’ f~.I=,_§:ttied between the parties and respondent

herein has receiveé a sum <:I§ Rs.25,000/~ from

the petitioner. And further respondent is

permitted to withdraw a sum of R3.5,£}00/~

which is deposited by the petiticaner with the

respondent Finance. As per the above terms,

this revision petition is settked between the
parties. Hencfi, this memo."

QlI’\;~

The memo is piaced on

pezmittcd to compound the ofi’em:c::=.A:

In terms of the sett1en1<: 1 1t;–.j;13js 'fie-vvisionisé
allowed. The impugned cf' sentence
dated 68.09.2006 in C{'C:r.1~Jci,113g¢%3s}j~=.323v.% confirmed by the
Lower vide judment
dated 13.024,§c:'–_.(;30«&:5a'1_j:: aésiti-;¥;"""'I'hc complaint filed by
the reé;po13.déij;iv–'is-«V1§E:¢byfii*cj¢ct6d and the petitioner] accused is
hereby

Sd/…

Judgg