-1.
IN THE HIGH COEERT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE SR5 DAY OF JUNE 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTECE SUBHASH E;£;';E'».--£7')_"iu»:.__'__:' "
BETWEEN:
'I'.M.Maha1ingaia1:1
S] c Mudlagiriyappa
Aged about 60 years
R/' a Talakerc
Turvckare Taluk V I * '
Tumkur District. _ .'.rI_?ET!'I'I€)NE2R
(By sn.M.Rajgopa1_&,
Sri. G. N . I{Iishn§g=:.n]vd.a, A;:dvs.)_'
AND:
State by V'.F'uru1ie1_<e1~t:1::E'c}1i€:c:V D
Repxesegnixted _ é _
The State; Public Prv{m¢c:1tdr_
High Court Bu;i1e§i.ng" ._ "
BANGAL()RE--56O (:31); »~ ' .. RESPONDENT
(By
. = D “‘?”‘hi:s:_ Revision Petition i$ filed under Sectiozl 397 55
40 1.9011. §3′;{?J;” .pra§ri11’g to set aside the oxder dt.2-4.9. 3997 passed by
thcé.C’;d.(Jr.i3u1_.).T’& JMFQ, Turuvczkere in C.C3.No.314/87 am} also
the ‘o._rde;f’ dt:’16.12.2()(}4 passed by the PI1.S.J., Tanzkur in
é CVCr1.A.N{>.?”:’_9/97.
n ‘ ~ D This Revision Petition coming on for Admission Vthis day,
” _ thé’ (hurt made: the following:
— accused has misappropriatcei the amount and in this regard.
he has prociuccd Exs.P9(b) and (c), which shows the signature of
the petitioner. The said book is a receipt book. the
evidence pmduccd, it is clear that the had
misappmpriated an amount of Rs.10,915.8O
out that, the receipt book Ex.P9 .é::iit\;i¢:$; “wIiic}1 _ L
reveals that, on 30.6.1981, fl;oug1;’.1;1;e V_
amount, but he had not ‘thesjtune of’
123,225/* and not depesitgd i'[_\1’VA1′,”i:1\’:–‘Vf._’.?i’w’.’*(‘”L’VVi’E.:}.r””.S’; ‘a’::c«:(t<)11z3;'t§. Similar is
R8500/~ as per of Rs.1,000/– on
4.5.1981, but or obtaincd for
having COI:';j'£vf"C'Ifpv£'3&V'p{3I'S0I1S. Similarly, on
23.6.:98.1._,Vhe.Vaei;;;¢§ the cash book at p:ag<*:~44
under ii§)11c11E.¥; F x.P8('b), alleging that amount is
paid The accused had debited an
amqpgnf of R$. hag; not amounted the szflnc. Again
shown shortfaii of 10 paise: being the
ciay. The (iocumentary evidence pmduced
befafii court clearly shows that, accused had
"'mi§apf5i*§i)1éat.ed the amount for his personal gain. In this
n the receipt. back, the cash book Ex.P3 and the entries
therein disclose the various amounts withdrawn by the
accuseci without approprtiatixxg in the account of the socitaty. Tha
$745
-4-
tria} court based on the said evidence has convicted the accused.
This judgment on appnzzciation of the evixienoe has been
confirmed by the Appizilate Court. No error or illezgalityi
on rccoxti is pointfizd out. Exercising the j11risd._i<;: i:i£)n4 i*th*c
revisian, I cannot m-appreciate the evidence. _–'E%%enT '_§1tli't':3"3'xzisc:L-,v_1:i:) 1
ilicgality nor any discrepancy is poizfied gut: 'fiiiércwlisinc
gmund for interference with me' said j1V1§ighimnts;'V:"'
Accordingliy, the Rcgyrision is dismissed.
35,;