IN THE HIGH comm' me' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 261"" DAY OF AUGUSI' 200:3
BEFORE " M
THE HONBLE MR.JUSI'ICE N. ANAl§l__I)P...: H
CRIMINAL REVISION Perrrxofi N'<»sg%%g. Lg _
EEEEHA
B.S.Manjunatha Swamy
S/o. Muddaiah
Aged about 45 years _
Attendcr, Canara Bank ' ~
Thyamagondlu Branch ' 'M
Nciamanga}.a.Talu1( A vvvv _ .V ' jv ..
Bangalore Rural £rfis%:rict.;' _ ~ ' ...Petitio33cr
(By Kumar, Advocates)
AND: _-- .,
A. H .....
. ' 2 ., ' S[Vo.V.1_.a;e'~.,Borcgowda
V _ LRS.
11%) % mi
'=w/-9. E3;'Ganga11na
about 46 years
A " 1{1A;)V); ' "£3.G.Vi}'ay Kumarm
-Aged about 30 years
VA .1(:£) Chandrakal
Aged about 26 years
1(d) Bhagyalakshmi
Aged about 24 years
1(6) Bynesh
Aged about 21 years
Respondent lfb) to 1(6) am children
0fB.Ganga13na andallarcr/o.
Byarcswara Nilaya, 8′” Cross,
Lakshmaiah Kalyana Mantapa’ _ .
Varalakshmi Garden, Mohan Nagafr
Ycshwanthapur V ._
Bangalore–E’>6O 022. . ” Respondents
(By Sn’ Ramcsh Babs
This ‘V section 397
Cr.P.C.,: and onzicr dated
25.01.2305; Fasi Track (Sessions) Judge-V,
2505, thereby dismissing the
appeal. filed thereby challenging the order
by XVIII ACMM Court at
B3″9§’i°*t’&”§f’3″v.
_ dayfthe made the following:
H 2 ‘-.,’)]’i1uis petition comm’ g on for final beans’ g this
am) £\psM,£5\)_ ”
Hthis mféf i1.;o};a decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 981
cos:-2_ ‘:of State of Kerafa Vs. Puttumana {Hath
Namboodin), wherein the Supreme Court has
The petitioner (hereinafter refcrncd ho §_va$ b
tried, convicts:-d and sentenced
under section 138 of the Ncgqérigtblc ‘V
[for short. ‘thc Act’). in C.C.Ndi;§S10] of
XVIII ACMM8aXXASCJ M’
Accused filcd on the
file of Fast at Bangalore. The
learned Sessions an of evidence has
confirmed th c:. Thcmforc, accused is
‘before this court by 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
of cégiéz 1 xx” nt findm gs recorded by the
appellate Judge, it is necessary for
‘5. Ordinaxily, thcmfom, it would not
be appmpriatc for the High Court
aPPIDPI1’atc the evidence and come to
conclusion on the same when * _
aircasdy been appreciated by _ A
well as the Sessions Judge in any. n
glaring feature is bmugiit”‘to
High Court which would
to gross of jnfificnjé ._
the impugned judfixent from
the aforesaid stamz-p§im,, var; 1ha§}e$ [iztésitation
to come to Court
czitrecttod’ its with the
conyziotion oi’=t¥:i§ ‘tI1=_§p9ndcnt by It-appreciating
the V ciaidéncc, The High Court also
fn’1’t’i1erV’-1°-.n’or in not examining scvcrai
“items of evidence “relied upon by the Additional
V’ ” -.S6sj$ions«’Ju_tige, while confirming the conviction
_ 9t’VVt1iii_~v_1:os§ond¢nt in this vmw’ of the matter. the
A judgment of the High Court is wholly
” aasivcie the same.”
unsizstainablac in law and we, accordingly set
3. In the case ofJohar as Others Vs.
another. n-;-ported in 2008 CrI.L.J.V 1527,o filo .1 V ” ‘V
has hcldh _ _ ‘
*9. Revisional thcoV»v’VHVigV1’;VV M
Court in terms of section VV
401 ofthc Code
The High Court did not on-t, error of
law on the part of tho It was
not opin¢;1..:1gat any been
left out o-iV’i4t’s below or
imlevagt ; bozo taken into
considegafigni; gnaw into the
merit it upon the
crodcntialify,__of It sought
to ref-‘-apprcciato V “fl1eVVV’ whole evidence. One
VV VV to be substituted by
V V V – anothcrpossibie
‘ what has been hckl in the above
thio Court can interfere with impugned judgment
VVio’~found Courts below have committed any error of
V” Courts below have left out relevant evidence or
L’ ‘ into consideration irrczlcvant evidence.
alsc ‘copy of letter as per Ex.D.2.
8′ the outset. it is necessary to state
between accused and Canara Bank cannot
as per so end’ ence. The accused has not examm ed
of the bank. However, hatter (Ex.D.1) addressed by
5. 1 have heaxd learned Counsel for pcfitic–;:1cr.v =
been taken through evidence and ‘
below.
6. The accused Whilst not son
cheque in question ccntei1§ie(:i’Ve–: 2001,
when he was travelling he
lost cheque accused had
informed the branch. not to
honour cheque “Tax2d : account
7. It is neccfisazyetc ‘the relevant time, accused
was workir;g.,ag Aituem.§er cf Bank, Thyamagondlu
‘I’he in te substantiate the same. has
($1’.1_e.1″.V1q1t’2 by Canaxa Bank, Gckula Branch,
Manager of Canara Bank is dated .
this document has come into cxistgnc; ” ”
were before that: Court . :3 A
9. The learned trial Judgfi
has held that plea of Vai signed
blank cheque, without Nclamangala
to Bangalore, trial Judge
has he Lost signed
blank the Managcr of the
_!_O. €’§cS§ibns Judge on 1c–appnx-iation of
has afixcd his signature on the
The learned Sessions Judge has held
employee of the bank was aware of
*«.,..44_”.g:onscq11;j:a1’1!:es of carrying siped blank chcqucs and also
% %%f’a§fi§n.L.to be taken after loss of the cheque. The accused has
that he has not surrendered remaining cheque
‘V V V H1″c §avcs, when he dosed his account.
11. From the contents of cheque marked as Ex.P.1, we
find cheque was drawn on the account beating No.5$O19
held by the accused. The contents of letter as ”
relate to ().D. account held by the
Ex.I3.2 would meal on 23.o1.2oo1V,e’
letter to the Manager of
Bangalore, regarding his smiengier
and treat cheque book as anti’ fl
Theee «’seE–.se§z’ving documents. The
contents of this letter by
examm1n’ ‘ g It is also ‘mteresting to
_ noficeiletler has come into existence after
xeejsondent was mcoztied. The learned trial Judge
Judge on proper appreciation of
V Vv . rejected the plea of accused that he had inst
W ” ” :s.iené:d” undated blank cheques during Januaxy 2001.
-_”I’h_Vet*efeIe, presumption available to respondent under
eeetion 139 of the Act was not mbutted by
iv- a£WW4:_
petitioner] accused. in these circumstances, I do ”
grounds to interfere: with judgments of Courts 1 ‘ ‘M
12. Accordingly, I pass the fofi§3jwir§g:-: 3
ORDER. V M
The nzvision petition is ofi”:ece{ dxmctx-,d’ to
send back records along
Sd/~
Judge