EN THE HIGH c©sRT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
QAQED THIS THE 17"'DAy 0? JUNE, 2QS9_
BEFORE: V
THE HON'BLE MR. JSSTICE g.s. pAcH3§PUfigff:,'_
CRIMENAL REVISIQN PETITION wo.669tg§.2008%- '
BETWEEN:
K.Ramanjinappa,
S/0. Late Krishnappa,
Age: 51 years,
R/0. Tharabanahaiii,
Jala Post; ; A»~_ m » '»H..
Taluk: Bangalore Nc,th. K _L<,.,v_ M PETITIONER/S
{By Sri. Sharanappa MéEtfif; Adv;?i §
Puttarajv,A~ A
S/0._Patalappa,
Age;'47,yearS¢
'*a_Rf§€,Tgagabanahaiii;
._ 'Jala p¢s:,~
', Ealafir Bangalore North. M RESPONDENT/S
‘EEy7Sii;fy@§}Vijayavasantha Kumar, §dV.]
-k’-Iewir
This Crl.R.P. is filed uzsection 3%? an§ 431
‘ Cr.P;C. by the aévocate for the petitioner, praying
‘td”set aside the Judgment and Order dt. 15.3.2808
%_ ‘ passed by the xxxv: Addl. City Civil & 3.3.,
‘~5angalore, in Crl.A. No.21?/87 and also the Judgment
and Order of conviction and sentence dt. 1.2.2067
paxsed by the XII Addl. CMM., Bangalare, in 5.6.
fio.14213fO5 and convicting the patitioner.
2
This Crl.R.P. Coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the fellowing: m
ORBER
Though the matter is posted fer eémieeion,*w::§%
the consent of the couneel, it is takee up fer fiieel
disposal.
2. The petitioner has eee;Ieeged fiie.c$nvictien
and sentence fer the efifenee}eeee%*Seetion 138 of
the Negetiab;ee:netrgeefieeV§cfi,fleereeeefter referred
to as “the”§C§5;fpr_eee;t§ efi e {rial held by the
Additional_Cfiie§QMee:eeeI;eeelfiegistrate, Bangalore,
and re;-.219/2007 by the learned
Sessions’Judge{*BéngaIere.
vS%3io The feats relevant for the purpose of this
R revieiee are as under:
‘g E will be referring the parties as yer their
*tank “before the Trial Ceert for the purpese ef
“eenVenience.
The petitioner herein in; the accused, whereas
the respondent herein is the complainant before the
Trial Court. In the menth of April 2684 the
sci.
3
complainant advanced, an amaunt of Rs.80,00GfiGO as
loan to the accused to discharga his Wiegai
necessities and t0 get car reiea3ed,wuwhi£ht wfist
seized by 3 Finance CorpQration1″«tflt°In=A theg’
circumstafices, after receiving the l5afi.amoufit, the
accuseé had given a chequé-far atéum Qf”&s{8O,COC~UUt
drawn on State Bank cf M§§Qte_toQé;@étte§§yment of
the loan. Thereaftét}ath%t%§%h;%ifianttfitéganted the
said cheque~Ex{P1 ang ttg $%§e fiat téturned with an
endorsement “Fgfids finstfficiéfitfgit The complainant
issued a i§§%i{fi§%tt§\:%fip$_t§ the accused and as he
did gbt ‘c$§pi% {Witt =tté “ndtice, the complainant
agproathéd tfléflfitiéikétfift with a cxm¢&aint under
Section t2QG» ¢r,? C; ifs: taking action for the
~ offefic§tundet”Se§t;0n 138 05 the Act.
.VtIfig@fifi$fi§§C€ of the summsns issuad, the accused
a§géared E%f5re the Trial Caurt. After recorfiing the
W_§ieag the complainant was examined as P.W.E and in
tthié\evidence gat markad the decuments Exs.P1 ts 5.
The statement of the accuse§, was recorded under
Wfiectian 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the defence of
totai denial and examined himself as D.W.E and get
marked the documents Exs.D1 ta 7. bé<;h
On apetecietien of the material on zecord, the
Trial Court convicted. the accused. for the 'ef§enee
under Section 138 of the Act and Senteneed"§ei§e%.a
fine of Rs.1,20,0GO~G0 and Get ef the eeifieeeeeetgki
it ordered to pay Re.8G,GG§~O§ te the Ceeeéeieeet age
compensation. The epeeeii,ia§eine§it,waei%,eiee
unsuccessful. Aggrievee eg the ceecetreet findifig
of conviction an§feeentehee* the eetitiener has
appzeached this Court in re§ieienQt'&
4. I;hefie heard the=iearn§§ counsel fer the
petitionei en5eeiee.tfieifee§eadeht.
5. the eeifitethet_3riees for my consideration
is;
v_ xWhethe;W,the Conviction ef the
petitieeer for the effence under
utSeetien i38 oi the Act and the sentence
‘”«theteeef as ordered by’ the Trial Court
efie ‘eonfirme& by the lewer appellate
ifiefirt is illegal and perverse?
A6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
u”sebmits before this Court that the petitioner had
deposited an amount of Rs.5Q,OO0-O0 before the
learned Magistrate and that the petitioner would pay
we
the remaining amount of Rs.3§,OO0-GO tQ_ the
eemplainant. He further eebmits that the petitioner
is an egriculturist and ii; a peer man ené fie ififiq
circumstances the fine amount Vmayt;be=erefleced _toeV
minimum.
Per contra, the Leerhed”eounSeiHefer’ the’
respondent supported the Judgment; and*Orders of the
Courts below.
7. I have flecrhtinfeed Tthe_ eeeumente produced
and the eéidenee led §§ the earties. As could be
seen free 55; eefende G5 the eccused, at one stretch
he seye Lthetfi fine ieheque was given to Sri.
Gopalagoedah ;.é.,t,ni§} brother for the purpose of
~, comptemise in*a criminal case and later he admits
A”e that he’h5d given the cheque te the complainant. So
far as the Ltahility is concerned, it is relevant te
neté. that7 after the cheque was presented, the
hhkieemplainent had issued the netice-EX.?3 and though
h_h3X;Di is the reply, the perusal ef the defence put”
h””umferth by the accused is inconsistent and therefore,
cannot be accepted. in that View of the mattex, I
do not think that there is any ground made out by
the petitiener/accused so far as the legality of the
2%
order paseed by the Trial Coutt convicting him for
the effeece under Section 138 0f the Act__ The
learned counsei fer the petitioner/accusedwhefibmits
that the petitioner has agreed to pay Reg85,$UC§O$
i.e., the Cheque amount ta the comfiiaifiafit and eo_’
far as this payment ie concerned, there is he afipeai 2
by the respendent/compleineht,’ V ijtetiegg Vinte
consideration that the 7eetitiefiet’ neg already
deposited an amount 6: Rethéfefifieflfl betere the Trial
Court and his requeet tetjfiiaht fit reaeeneble time
fer payment of iemeinihe a§§;fi:,§f’Rs.3e,aoa«oo and
the j§ine:t_t%59nétfli§£i,’Ré.40,ooo»0o, as the
petitienet/aeeheeei~@eie,,h an agriculturist and
considetihg = his Q fiéancial condition and the
“a, liability ta fiay the cempensation amount, I think it
‘Qeuid.hefjfist and proper to reduce the fiee amount
Rf:5m:'”a§;§0,6bo~0o to RS.1O,OGO~OO. in the
cifeumetaeées, the petitioner has to pay a fine of
hhd Rs 90,C§Q~QG and out ef which, an amount of
‘i,’gé:86,ooo~o0 shall be paid t0 the respondent!
” aweempiainant as cempensatien and the remaining amount
of Rs.1Q,QQO~OO shail be credited to the State as
fine. in the circumstances, to this extent, the
Jedgments afid Ordets cf the Courts belew will have
to be modified. Hence, I answer the point partly in
affirmative and. partly in negative and. proceeo;”€oa
pass the following:
The petition is aiiowed,in_part,”confifméog tfiéi
conviction of the petitioner/oocosao for in; offance
under Section 138 of tfi§nfiQfiW §E§jfifie ioifoduced
to Rs.90,000–OO and ouo’ of iioisiiigo ;amount of
Rs.80,000–00 sbaliflVbe< géia-.£5;_f§§B respondant/
oompiaiaant. 5ffi¢i$m§gfi&g§f,fi§f§s,ooo–oo, which is
already oepo:if§oK*befc£§i ihewwiearned Magistrate
shall be oaid fie ihofiooooioioaht and deducted in tfie
payment of §s,8G,§G9;QG.lon§ the: petitioner/aocused
shall péyi the fiémaining amount of Rs.3G,O0Q-00 to
the. "respouoeot{complainant and the fine of
R3.i0,®QO?G§Hwi£hin three months from this day, in
iwoefauitathé'gotitioner{accused shall undergo simple
4"*impfii3onment for a period of 3 months.
S4/5
Iud§§
V.Ksm*