IN THE HIGH comm' 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGA1.;3:Rf_E_T'~V.VV
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY 01? AUGUST «;;:m& .
BEFORE
THE H('}N'BLE MR.JUS}'I(3--E N:.{'r'».§4ANl_3P: A'
CRIMINAL REVISION Pi*'iV'I'i~T§ON"}~5o;ié.*38 xjéxfigafi
BETVVEEN:
Sri G.I{enchappa V ' '
S/0. Sharanappa, Agw abcent f-'E52 .
Occ: Conductor in l{SR'E'C A . bb
RIO. No.1102-C, Stage, .
Ballashaxlkari 3'*i«Stage.§;Hosa:kcrr;haili,V '
Bangalors. H V' Pctitiongr
(By Sri (
AND: A _
Sri J.Veer£ibhadrappa; --
S/0. V _
Aged. about 49
"vR/o...f2:nJ.,_ Main, 17*ht"3mSs, K12} Nagar
.D'.N.o.'21_V9{.1.44"«--._
Respondent
(By S. V.§35r£a.iiash, Advecatc)
"FHis_ fevieion petétien is filed under section 39'? r/w 401
V "C.r.P.C., "praying to set aside judgment of conviction passed in
V. 'v»£'»,C.i'~¥o.2319/2004, on the file of JMFC-ii Court at Davangcre
" T ' datedA06.07.2006 and aentence passed in CrLA.No.95/2006 dated
53.11.2006 on the file of Acldl. Sessions Judge, F'I'C«-If at
Davanageahe 8: etc.
This revision petition coming on for admission this day. the
Court made the foliowing:
ORDER
The matter is in admission Iist, the *
moulds are Icoeivcd, with consent __0f £0352 “‘
both part1e’ s, matter iss taken up for & ‘
2. Them are of ” V
petitioner] accused (h6IEiI.ia3&BI’$ a S”‘a§(;c1;.:;3cd’] for
an offence punishable uiidfi. the Negotiable
Instnzments Aet, r 1/881:.A”(ibr::”:s}V1o:tf:ié,__ Therefore,
petifioncr is ibis bgaéaivoldng sections 397 8:.
401 <::«.:i.%<_':.L 4' _ _
3. Izéufigeéqase & Others Vs. Mangal Pmsad as
V anamggg’ reparieezfi’ 299′.-3 Crl.L.J. 162?, the Supreme Court
V _ l::ias& iitid A’ *
. $9; %%’vTL%%1éevisinna1 jurisdiction of the High
‘ {énns of sectioza 397 read with section
?i£)iAg:fVthe Code of Criminal Pxucedum is limited.
* Thvé” High Court did not point out any crmr of
V’ ” on the part oft}:1c:: learned Trial Judge. It was
not opinad that any relevant cvidcnee: has been
left eat of its consideration by the court below or
irrelevant material has been taken ”
consiieretian. The High Court entered j”
merit of the matter. It commented ._
cxedentiaiity of the Autopsy lit
to Ie–apprec:iate the whale’ eféicienee. fling .
possible View was sougiit-1.0 be’-efibsiitaivfeti;
another possible via’ 5%» ”
4. In View of what been ;Vheld._i2.*;tbc above dectisicon,
this Court can interfere 01113! if it is
found Courts of law or iefi
out — ceiiéiiemfien or considered
1:rre’ leva1ite1IiateIia1.’«.”
55. TI;e~ for accuscxi has submitted
< n9fV"'ise.ued cheque in favour of respondent.
transactions between petitioner and one
had given three signed blank cheques
'eto zfievezeaj. There was some dispute between petitioner
x V' _fa1itd 8;aid I)evaraj. Thezefmte, said Devaraj had instigated the
— to file a eempiaint under ssection 200 Cr.P.C.
W ;>»-~a’L.
6. Before trial Court, cxaminafion~i11-shicf u
an affidavit was filed by accused. However, H
temier himself for c1’0$s-cxa1ninati{ii1;”‘
opportunity was given. ‘I’11er¢fc;=1:§e,.bA:’.V1f.V,«1′:&L,§A1V’A.
afidavit evidence filed by A’.IV.”i_’.-€_3. sjon
appreciation of evidcnxm ‘l;.);sr VIv:.”s>.p<3.n'11«£:'ie:;;~.t. .1{as heid
accused guilty of an ofiezicé' saction 138 of
the Act.
mlavanf-gjmé, Siiiféiing firoin ilhless, therefore,
he could Iii}: available for cross~exa1ninat:ion
A a11dv.»opport1;i3ii?.iVFv__’_??;3««v€iV€n to acrczused by Iemanding the
A V ‘ ‘ . 2 n1§1t–f4f:jr ‘ (hurt.
‘A Counsel for respondent would submit
N,accused_ has not raised plea of illness before I-appeiiatc
” ‘ he has not pmduced any madical records to Show
éffi Ielevant time, he was ill and not able ti) attend the Court.
N (gm gmmaew
Therefore, accused cannet be permitted to raise A’
before Ievisional Cami.
8. After going thmugh itoorég,
examined one Nabijan as r L’
as DW2. I-Even DWI was A_I.1Dt
Thereafter. on »’iii1–shief by way of
affidavit of accusfii v’§vas:Afiit:;:.3~§:”«(3Ii documents
filmed. by &1_’:.%éVd,:”v,”(‘;”}.VYVC:P ?;§;’L§;f3XaHliE:EtiOIl was
d€ffiI1’€d.__ appear before Court
beiow Zgon’ “”3i.f)5.2006, 16.06.2006 and
for aflcused sought for time to
Q11 23.06.2006,, same request was
lsarned Counsel for accused
and case was posted fer
plfliifluflééméfit of judgment. Thus, Wt? find them was no
” H ” cjffrppofiunity to accused. The aecuscd had not made
éa;fi:i_§*” -fiequest to the trial Court for permission to tender
..himse1f for ems-examination. Even before the appellate
gm: L/» ”
Court, medical records were not produced. Therefore, it
cannot be said there was denial of opportunity.
9. The accused has admitted that In: _
cheque in question. Hawcvcr, he hat! a0llfi!i’i” ”
that he had iasucd blank
to establish the samc- . The trial on pmpcr” ammAi ‘ tion
ofcvidcncc. has held aocu afi’enoc ‘ hahk:
under section 138 of Court on 1&-
appIUcLIho”: ‘ 1 thefindingmoozdcd
by trial ‘Cgnirt. do not find any pounds to
interfgrc \jvit3;’tl2:t::A’ixI1.1i3ug1ed ‘ ‘A judmcnt,
% % k revision petition is aismimd.
Sd/1
Judge