IN THE HIGH coum 0? KARNATAKA AT eANe;AjLQ;2s&A%%
BEFORE"
THE HOWBLE MRJU STICE MoHA:=4 %sHANTAeqA5cu1:Aa &k %
c:2m;mAL ngvrsxow {@257/zoos
BETWEEN:
Dfiasavarajappa
3/o.Eswar:=1ppa _ -
AgI'iCUli1;1If_i$'{" " '
r/achurch '
P.J.Ext;:;1sii3J3[" 3 * V ~ "
Dava3:'iger€'=.. f, ..PE'§'l'I'I(}NER
(By Sn' i<o_%visa:vakt:n&ar;am.)
.
“s311£;~agent};sm”1 Driver
4’i*«..Me2§;a; 4m Cross
Behind ~Ye1Iamma Temple
AAVinob1m}3’agar
fiagangerfi .. RESPONDENT
H.V.Krishna Murthy, Amicus Cmsaie)
-3-
This revision gefifjcan is filed under Section
by the advocate for the petitioner praying that
Court may be pleased is set: asicic the *.<f.1-rdcf. "ti:ai:::~x_;i
30.11.2005 passed by the Se3sions_"'Ju<:l:g¢,"'V.VFTC:I,"=
Davanagcre, in Cr1.A.No.i21:'S[ 200$' 1:316 ":_:_ot;vic.tion
order dated 4.6.2005 passeci by the JMF §I.5~Ii; }§3a.\ian;*agf-:~%1fe;:. in
CC.No.2294{ 2804 and canfizm thc._cénvieti:1 GI”.df:::rV
4.6.2095 gassed by the JMFCL-iI__ C’,<:3u1"t.__ I)avars.a'g~:'=,;*e,_v_
This revision petition Q11 this day
the Court. made the fol197'fV5113:rV""' *
This % witiori.' is ffled by the eriginax
comp1£:in.%1;it.1§réi3€ing"–f§)£_ exihm gément of ssentence.
2'; The ' …._:':;:1-fifislose that {ha 1:'espondez1t-
is;s116;§i"£§h<*¥{_1ué§ dated 15.7.2604 far a $11111 of
– iixmfiéavour of the pefifio11er«-complainant
of loan. The said cheque-, on
pf£:–se11’é:aii:511, was returned with an endorsement
n”i53’sufi§.fi.:ient funds”. After coinpiying with aii the
‘ ‘.éiiai11tGI*y formalities, the compiamt was lodged. Both
” ‘ ‘”‘i:h«..=: parties led thair evidence ii} support of their case.
W
-3,
The Triai Court after ccmsidaring the n1ater$;;1i_”‘:;i :1′
convicted the accused and sentenceci Ifim
imprisoliment and to pay €31’ 7.
Quest.ioning the said erudézr of C€}I}f§’iCfiOI1,.£1fi{i Seixténée,
the accused filed {)r1.A.1§?t2; é’15/ Faéi
Track Court, Davmigere. fhough
retaizied the wider of the sentence GI’
impzisonmga’:it’j:;:j. iQ =: 1 ‘c:cn:npensation ta
3 the reducticn of the
ser1’i”%§f:I’z1<::Vstw='.;,A has filed this revision
pefifiéii. :.;i4:¢i:f: e'i§;har1ceme11t of sentence.
" " 3. As qrésgssndent is served and unrepxfisentrsd,
Murthy is appointed as Amicus Curaie
._ Calm: by argtliizg on beha}f of the
' " * vvfieard the léarned advocates.
\/"
M1.
4. Thfi mnvicteti accused has met filed an}?’Tf$=’§i$ion
petiticsrx questioning the erder of cGnvicfia;;;:— ‘ ffh.11ce_1g*::}:’i:1to £115:
correctness 31’ the order of (f~;)I}V:iGC}i(3Ii.-, ” I£;jI<§s2£%cs2'e;", vfiiis "
Cour: finds that both
the materiai can record in and have
correefly CGYiCiL1{i€{i:{1f.*Ei1; fixbie to be
convicted for the Secticm 138
of the aforementioned,
all {#16 were feliowed. Therefore,
the V §:or3:ecfly cancluded that the
is 'by the accused in favcrur of the:
far repaymexii; of the icaari. Therefore, this
~_ C:;§uri' find any errar in the conclusion reached
below.
5. Even 03:: the aspect of sentenca, this Court does
” ___53:1{::’t find any gmund tn iI”fi1f:I’f€I’€ with the order of the
Sessions Court, inasmuch as the Sessions Cam’: in
V9
? exa::1*(:.ise of its judicious diS{:i’€fiGI’i, hem concluded {hat
thfi respondcintaccused shall be se11t¢nce§?;~-.’tjg:~’:
imprisonment for six monihs 4;g.’ ”
cmnpensation of Rs.4,00,G(§fi)/of
Rs.§,G{}G/-. it is hroughtfio t1é3L&_v.’1;:cx’ticeTV0§,’
the leaxned crounsei H cf the
petitioner that éiréaxdy served
sentence sf mqr;€:…11§.~. the matter, no
usefui if the respondent
is ‘ttfifififgc h-“1gher puxiishment. in View of
the same; thé; fd11é:)w¢§i1g4o1*der is made:-
«.C:mfm’ i11#x1V””‘i’é%.risi<}11 petitien is dismissed, with
_t1j:e petitioner to recaver the compensatian
51" Rs.4,{)G,OQ()/- from the respondent, in
x T acséariianee with iaw.
This {leurt piaces on mcard the service rendered
by Sri. H.\«’.KIishna Murthy, Amit;-us C’i1I’8i€.
W
Office its directfid to pay a sum ”
{fiufiees ‘ave thausand 01113;) ti) V’
as honourarium.
“ask! ~