Mr Sridhara S V Shetty vs Mr Sundar Poojari on 18 June, 2009

IN THE HEGH COURT 0? aganawgga %? BANGALGRE
DATED TEES THE 19" SAY OF JuME,'2ae9
BE?QR£:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE §.s. pACaHA§3R3 WQ 

CREMINAL REVISIQN PE?ITI®N No.88§ GE 2008

ggwwaaw:

Sridhara S.V.Shetty,
S/0. Vittai Shetty,

Aged about 42 years,
Sfiiva Sanidhi,

Kaiai Guttu House,

'Kandttu,

Post: Kukshekar, '~_ V ' >    ,
Mangalorem5?5 Q05. :V""-f' W {_ '.a ; PETITIONEEXS

{fly Sgi. KfSh&$hikafifi§_Prasad, Adv.}

&NB:

Sundar"PGajarif" 

"Ufl3fQ} Q§jfi Peojaiifiwv

V VAgad'abOut"fi8 years,

't2S§§ii N;$as,'%ea£ §a@e: Mill,
A?¢3t:'¥bdahgai§,

Hcsahettuf$:;iagep
Moodbidrii3?4 22?. M RESPGNEEfiTfS

K:-2  .{8y 32:; Safiath Kumar Shetty, Adv.}

ai:°§a'~k

__ ", '"This ¢r1.R,§u is filed ufSeCtion 39? agd 4&1
_ "Cr;P.C. by the Advecata is: the gatitianer praying
 '=twT 39$ aside the Judgmeat of convictian amd the
7.§rder af sentence fii. i8.1.2OS6 pasfied by the Civil

Judga §Jr. 8%.} & JMFC., Meodibidri, in C.C.
§o.129fQ4 and tha same was confirmed by the 3
dt. 3.§.2QG8 an tfie file 3f the 9.6., ETC~I, B.K.,
Mangalore, in Crl.R¢ fiG¢33f2QQ§.



This Crl.R.?. Gaming an for Admissien this éay,
the court made the fsllowing:

ORQER

Though the matter is posted for admis$i5n;"Qith 

the censent cf the counsel, it iS_taEéfi gfi f5r fiflai'

disposal.

2. The petiticnér  hag' vcha;Eefiged' his

convictian and semtence_ fia:= the "offenbe undar
Section 138 cf the .Négdtiab:@ "instruments Act

[hereinafter referred tQ>a5_?t$é Abf; for short} on

a tziai heflfi by the JM?C[;"Md§ébidri,-and Confirmed
in CrimiaélvV§fi§efil N§}§3/2806 by tha Fast Track

Court, Méhgaicré,

*§3,° The faQ§§_relevant fer the purpose sf this

 1_revéS:mn\aK€ as under:

W,I ail: be raferring the parties a3 per their

. rank" béfayé the Trial Caurt for the "purpose of

"_cefi$eniéBce.

'K'""Th& §etiti0ner herein 35 the accus@& and the
'~:%spondent hereia is the Camplainaat befare the
Triai Caurt. The complainant submitted his

rug

cempiaifit mafia: Saction 2&8 Cr...Cw is: taking



acticn under Section 138 of the Act alleging that in
dischazga 95 the money due ta him the accusgd hafi

issued a cheque éated 3§.G6.2Q@2 dxawn an Syfifiibate

Bank far Rs.3,9Q,GQS--G8 in favour of the cQm§Léifi§nfi 

and he received the said cheque infgafid fagth and§

presentefi the same for coi1eéticé*thrcu§h'th§,5Eate

Bank cf Myfiore andT the _Same was .di3hofim§:ad and'

returfied with an endarsemegfi CE "insufficient fund"
on 06.68.2832. Emmédiatalyyvihé.éamplainant issued

K'; -73

a lawyexs notice da:e§%.13.Q8§20u4 fEo the accused

demanding thé §hegué'afidfin§,_§és@ite the service of
notiae, """ "a$ jthéW;3ccused 'fi:d" not comply with tfia

demand} the ¢s$§1éifiaQ€'a§§reached the Trial Court

and f;leflV5"cQm@;ajnE in these facts.

. VIn_pursuafic@m@§ the summons issued, the accusefi

.V2appear9fi*b@fb:e tha Trial Csurt and after recoréing

the"§lea, the complainant was examinefi as P.W.1 and

the udoiuméfits Exs.Pl is 6 were admittad in the

',gvidenmé. The sfiatemami sf the accugad was recazfied

'=_fifi§Qf Sectian 313 Cr.?.C. fie has taken the defence

'~$f tatal denial and has act iefi any éefenc

.1

evifiemae.



and confirmed by the lowe: Appeilate_«

Court ara iiiegal and gerverse?

6. It is the contention of the lea:ned,dQua$ély

for the petitione: that thg"mc0mpiai§afit  fiasg hot'

meatianed the particuiars of fihe.firanéaCtiofi"in his

complaint and that he hfi3¢@eniéd_théxsiqhat@re gm

Ex.P5. Further he s§bmit§m£hatH§he Cemplfiinant has
misused the blank  §heqfi$i §fi5 :%fter fiiiing tfie
blanka has pre5e@ted"t§é sémg fig fi§§ éank. Hence he
submits fihaé' %fi§ .%vid%nc§Vi@fu E§@ cQmplainant is
insuff;§§$m§f E? 'C@fi§£Cfi  &fi§  p@titioner and the
£udgm§nts:éfi§ Q;§ér§ éf the bourts below are iliagal
and pefi§?fi5€-' §§fié§n§fii?@ly, he submits that he has

already paid half bf the amount and requests far 6

 ~mofithsy€ime ta mééé payment sf tha remaining amoufit.

"_H@T 'alsQMf"3ubmits :0 reduce the gentence of

imgrisonmaahi

E33 contra, the learned ceanaai for the

 fi:@3p§ndent $u@§0rted tfia Jadgmemis and Qfdéffi ef the

WU Céurts belaw.

?. SQ far as the perusai cf the euideaca of

§.W.1 is concgrnefi, ii i3 nec§3sary' to mate tha:

tfiere was a partnership buginasg beiween thé



Ex.?6--§eed of retirement and disseiutien ef the

parteezship reveais issuance ef cheque fer
R.3,90,G8G--QO and after receipt of the n0tiee%Ex.F3,

the petitioner did not care to :eply --fiheL said

netice. Rpart frem this, he éid moi ,en€ef= the_

witness box and from these eircumsianceeg it ceuifij

be inferred that the aeeeseeflhee"fioenéufififieetgfiéee
zeal facts befere the Cefi§e¢ £§:$GU%e]Be"eeee free
Section 138 of the fiat §fie;e*§s e'§fies;$ptien and
the fact that the ehefiue was is$§§a,:o; discharge of

the debt or liebili;v and=tfiet a netiee was iseued

fez whieh}»ffihefe' was" no _fepE§' having' been eroved
satiefecteriiy 2 item _ tee evieence sf P.W.1.

The§efere;g avVp:eeump:ion arieee under' law and' no

"e rebdfitei evide&Ce-eaVe been led by the accused fie

'disbeiieve {he alieqatiens made by the'e0mpiaiee§t.

Ifi ie in tie context cf these circumstances that the

eeufts*Abeiow' en aeereeiatien ef the materiai on

'V,reee§d"have arrived at the eeneiesien to eenviei the

peiitieeee fer the offence under Sectiee 138 of the

8. ?he eceee of the xevisien is iimitee and

this Ceurt eaeeet re~appreeiate the evidence uniess



L.¢,L

*%e petitiener establishes tbat there is caypicieus
appreciation 3f the eviéence. in the circum$tance3,

E am 3% the opinion that the §&€itiQfi€E has fibt mfifle

amt any such graunds to warrag; fih@J1flfie¥f駀fiCQ_ifi»"

the coaviation erder. So f3Efl"83: the. $enEenc€; is
concarnefi, it is relevant to nbté that L 0;

 

Rs.3,§G,§08wfiQ wag flue.
pay' compensation cf xRsfE,GQ}Q@Q9QO afid a fine cf

R5.5,§§§~GG and imp@séd_séfifienae=@f im§risonment Q;

 

5 msnths a§  p%oQe%&ifi@§ a§§E3fl: the nature of
quasi ci€§£Zfifiéééefiifigfiplifwfihink it wculd ha just
and gfdfier fits ¥§nnfifiL"thé "Séfitemce of imprisanmeni
ord@r$fi by ifi§fi§figr%$$§§iéw. in tha circumstances,

I an$we: the geifit Qaftly in affizmativa and partiy

in fiegétive afid_§§¢ceefi to paaa the feliawing:
ORDER

€h@’§étiti0n is allowed in part, confirming fihe

L,cc§viCiion cf the patitisner far the offance under

‘fiecfiion 138 Of the Act. The sentensa cf impriscnmgnt

-af é msnths Ofd§IE§ by the ?riai Smart is set agide

anéT the §ati:i@nez’ is ordered to gay’ comgensaiien
and E339 ardezed by t%e Ccurts bglow. If any amount

has baen gaid during the penéenc” of tfie

prcseedinga, the same shail be deductefi. frfim the

amaunt af campansatien. The petitioner ia granted $

{five} months time from the date sf ihis Dfdéf to

p&y the compensatian and fine amount, ii déffiulfi fie

fihakl undergo simple impfisofime§tZ_fof six}

months. Tha bail bonds a:$_canceiied;