cr;z;§*é.§§a§3o%.-ééi-i?m6
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNA1~_um_:rr
DATED THIS THE 3-6 DAY £313′ 7 T X
THE HON’BLE Dr.
CRIMINAL
BETWEEN: V H A
MR HARISH
3/o POOVAPPA ‘V ‘A ” .
we summ HIVAS, (moss ‘P5:pAv,« 3
PERMUDE, Mmugmngss. _ = ~ mmonns
(By Sri.P P Hmmez, .
AND:
MR RANJAN 1*. ”
AGED 36″i’F,ARS, A.
.3/o ‘rH’§MmPpA A
– , Rm KUJU!HEBAi;..fl’I-IOTA HOUSE
‘:MA.I)’&’.A_VI1,I2!+.GE:,” MANGALORE Rasponnsm
% (By crLANfiR5;§§A’Ifz¥I’$.R:aA, ADV.)
o.-:-
” THIS CRIMINAL PETi’l’i-ON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
C-OUR!’ MADE THE FOl.LOWINC’v:-
ORDER;
The petitionerlcmplainant’ of
JMFC v Court at Mansalom. is qm§siii’mg
the oiiicr dated No.l13[20D4
on the file of Sessions modify the J-udrment
of sentence dated on the file of JMFC V
2. H submits’ that the Trial Court
convicted ttie awn’ _ “offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable. illstfllli its the cheque issued by the ooa:nplaman’ t
agof ‘RAs.3,d(‘)V,”(K}(‘)[– was dhhenomed) and sentenced the
oomp!.aman.’ t. As again” at the order of convnctaon’ ‘
_ the accused approached the First Appellate Court. but
um dismissed oonfirming the older ofthe Trial Court. The
‘ t also a the Sessions Court tmdm Section 397 of
for enhancement of the sentence. but the learned See’ 3
Judge dismissed the oomipimamvs revision petition. Thexc:R)re, the
petitioner is before this (301131: praying for enhanoemerzt of sentence.
L/_o
c1;é:;,i.:i$;
3. Lcaxncd counsel fir the 4′
as at the onlezr of thc Sesame’ ns ‘A
petition bcfom this Court but ..
intcxim order to deposit 30% of md he
withdrew the xcvision of one
month and then: no out by the
pctititnncr/oo1nplaina’1;:t’i:-cns§ia¢cIz:=A_ii>1: sentence.
4. It is Court has ahcady taken s
vicw in R.RAV’.§SHAlfi}§«”.v{ am 2093 mm 1390; and
held that it is to impose: fine and it is not
mamiatnxy tgssgis the oficnoc undur section 133 Act,
doumc be imposed ss ms. It is further held
that no absolute right to insist to award double the
as In View ofthc said decision, then: is no
result, the pctifion fia11s’ md the same ‘3 hcxehry
bn.v*
Judge