Sri Damodar vs Lokmanya Co-Operative Credit … on 4 June, 2009

{N THE HIGH COURT or    _
cmcurr BENCH AT ..   V 3
DATED THIS THE 4:»     .v 
"mg I-IOIFBLE M7R;;§_t:sTIcE~i¢g5.:}Am&¥;AVVV

cnxmmsm R£1'§?"1's;:(}£iI §"'V_E5;"i:';E'?3'I(--V'§Z5i!i. nu. i:;7'9./2607

BETWEEN:  

Aged abiéut €53 jféars  f
0cc::Busin€:S--s1'V.;_.?   ~ _ 
R,io,~ 'gm ?;4'1E;, c;::;;;3_o}1ar--%r:m<;::y'« '
Angel, Balgié-i1_am_  u  -- f

Sn; {}amQg:'i.a;;   " u 

_ 1. _ J MPETITIONER
{By $ri:V'I«3.1::3;1~:asVV}.1._'§;Etl_1," Afiivocate}

E?-RD:-."L'.

   Qcifnpcrafivé Credit
._ ;:3;:;=21et§r'_£;$_d;~, '
'£?ep[td., 133: its Racavery Officer

 AX fiiakwédi, Belgaum

E&'av11f.i;fg':§:§' Ofiice at Swarmp
Piaza, 'Shukrawar Pfiflii

. . .REé$?OHDEH"f

  Sri. Prasamza 'V'. R, Aévocatc for J. S. Sheztty 85
 Associates, Aévocates)



Thig. criminal revisien petition. is f11cc'i 'm1d.§%:+. s§c':«;§i:i«:)n.

3%'? {3r.P.C praying to mt asidc the order.da'§e::<:1 V  
passed by the IE} Adtii. SEISSiO;1S"'J1;§3gt§, Beiga11m.__m 'L~'.§r1.'. '
Aprpeal No.92] 2006 and the order pagstaéfiby' tfii-:3 J,EV§.F'}C, EV 3

Court, Belgaum in CC Na.98S/';20{;§rdates:1 '€)§'.0'3..2Q§)?€:T.:by
allowing this revision petiticm. '   " '   

'i'hi:3 crimlh al mvision'j§z*iifi0n c<31::_i::i'gT  f%;f;rVé$;§in1issic)V1V1
this day, the Cami maria ih¢__fo1lo_fw§;";g; 5

  111$ admission, with the
con3;:;;'t:Ǥ'&a'::>ie iastmzments Act.

 --3  heard learned Ceufisel of parties and I have

_  file judgments 0f Courts bcmw.

4. The Trial Court and £113: Apgxéllatc $91111 have

rejected contefitign cvf accuses} that he has discharged

liability under {£16 receipts as per 13131.92.
«T-  'D '7""'"""'"OZ\ ,

f\,'3



5. in View of conemxent fmd.ing$  _T1;I%1ve
$011113 below, it is neccissazy ta refer  
in AIR 1999 SC 981 (in the 
Puttumana fliath Jathavcdan   
Supreme Court has Tileld:--- '  V V' .v 

" It would naf 13¢ .'E3tf-LiA)L",:_I%1i¥'_E.3$VA}}§"!ié._:i'i»(:'.v3"'1§'QI°  Ceurt in
exercisa of its   to m~appn~:c:iate
the tzvidrzmce z5:;1<'i''»::£'§mé' } 'conclusion on the
 tbé«.¢v€i§:fe'3::¢§§  ":»:«xL*:§ady bee;:1 appreciated
by;' the Sessians Judge: in
   feature is brought to the
 1}<_:afiii:éTvL'._~;1fVv_.(Zto11I't which would othemége
V".g3_§1tai:u0!;3f,e.»f;_L:~ .. miscarriage of jigsticé. 0:1
sé:1;fin£ziif1g  ifiipugned judgment of tha High C0111?
 " from'  stand--poiz1t, we have 110 hssitation -

V  tie "a:t;:2me  conclusion that the High Court
~.;{::c'_ee§:fec: its jurisdictiszjn iu intétrfexing with the
 af that respondem; by re--appre<:ia¥:ing the
.§éV}iée12<:§. Tha High Court also committt:-,d ftgrihfir

'~ _;e72i:ror in not sxamiziing sevcrai items of eviéencs rttiisd
"sgpon by the Additiczsnai Sessiens Juéige, while
confxzmjng tbs cqnviction of tha rzzspcmdeni. in this
View of the matter, the impugned judgmentfif the High
Cisurt is Whoiiy unsustainaiaie in law ané We,

accoxéinglgig set aside {he game." I L
W» G '..'\.«-I5"/"!'~»\~--' «.



The T1131 Court has heki that accuseé "fjgla

amount undar {ha receipts towards i_nterest""a;1ci 'a3L' 011 the' 

date of fxiing the complaint,  b i  

Rs.1,28,I19/- ané he had _ issutéd. __ 1»::'t";§z ci1¢»€;'3;;Ac.:"tQ 2 €i'1?:'sK(:h é:'g§:

the Eabflity,

6. The First   reapprsciation Of
evidence has__   V(;§fv--."V't11(2 '"I'ria1 Court'

Th-tsrefom,  a§;.%4;1¢t fmc: é:ii1y°'g§¥c{1:1:is;: to interfere with the

  '   - 

ACi:aI*c£it1giy,A p§¥fi$;iE)n is dismissed. I'

 .....  

Iudge