High Court Karnataka High Court

Manjunath Hanumata Kolipuchacha vs Victor Bhaskar Nair on 18 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Manjunath Hanumata Kolipuchacha vs Victor Bhaskar Nair on 18 February, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE: HIGH C:C}UR'I' ca? KARNATAKA
emcvrr BENCLH AT DHARWAD V %
Dated this the 18"' Day of February,  «'  A' 
Before  '  V L. M V
ms: Homam MR JUSTICE      _ 
Criminal Revision Pgzizggn ;§¢;:gé52   " VA 
Between: '  h V  «V R

MANJUNATH HANUMFLISTA -  

:L§P{,t§;:2a:§i M KHANNUR, ADV)
And: ' V H H

'%i!§j;?f0R BHASKAR NAIR
z'%G'E1£}-LABQUT: 3{}"'2"EAi?S

'  'v0<:am;31NEs
  grcs  ;;.E::V_iE. R ROAEZ),
 I'»iAL1YA_1;~,,.e_$a::v329  RESPONDENT

(By Sri 1. -:»%2AxAsH B ANGAQI, ADV)

(:;r~2L.Rp 1:32.30 U] S. 39? R/W 4:}; 09 CR.P.C BY THE

“~_ Aai/G(:A’z*E FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HOWBLE; com? MAY BE PLEASED T0 SET ASIDE THE

M

ORBER mmn 12/03/2008 IN CRL.A.NG.3/;?fiO?VVP$S§§E~D

BY’ THE COL¥R’I’ op DiS’¥’R§C’£’ AND sEss_§o2-:VATwaébcéég,
XJTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR Am frag:’Jij’:>£’§£»1$?a’i§V_Ami”
ORDER DATE{) 07/12/2006 IN :Q.c;–,wfi;S’13)A200S’V$332335 ‘
BY THE COURT ()1? CIVIL, qUnGAE,:”{J;%.n1~:;’;_A’NB ‘;41’z’v:*F'<':«,,

HALIYAL.

THIS Rsvlszeéf’~V~..1:>g’3*’i’z’;QN§.__3$~–..c0M;1§:c§ on FOR
ASMISSION mxs DAY, %m: MADE THE
FOLLOWING: ” ‘

against the order passed by the
Distxifii u and ‘ “‘««ji1dge, Kaxwm’ in Cr1.Appea.1

N0..:3,i_V2O0’7; the oréer of convictien anti

3¢;:§en.ca pggsseci B’y'”‘:-;1:e amps, Haliyal in C.C.No.5}f3/2005

ngtesj :2; 1-i>;’>2?§:0i:%sr5>.

2. ~~i§r:a1~d the imaumed ceungel for the respective parties.

A V _” AA’;1’i1¥é~«::_::arties are Exist) present befsre the court.

yér

3. According to the resp0ndt3nt«c0mp1ajnani, the agzcused

has mczeiveei a sum of Rs.3,30,0{}O/ ~ from mm

sci} his Tractor and ‘Trailer, su¥3$equenfly,__.–§{§é’ ”

ageeé to refund the said amount a1sQ”iSs{i¢{§ &V:(:}1cq1%e”

fer Rs.1,3{),{){)0/- dateé 22-9-2:€3{}5:_-AAa¥.;4a.v%::;_.’ :z;§:»;*- fa2%jc;gr’=;:;_;’£

Varada Gramcena Bank,

éishonoared when it was T {b iigslzfiicicnt

funds. *_-a ‘the: petiiioner for
n0n–paym¢fi’¥, _’«.. not pay the amount.
“issu::-sijv a iegal notice, which was
seIveé’~ 01:i »~9-2005, and the matter was
t::o1:1tcsted”.»__ held that there is legaiiy

enfcifceable ciéébt. ¢Lfaé,-:[1fi:e;r issuancfi of due iegal notice, the

.A ts pay the amount to the I’t”:Sp€)I1d€1}1. it is

.;iBQ there is no rebuttal eviécnce and

accused for the efience under Sectioza 138 of

N.t3g0t;ia’t1¢l£ Instrumcxlts Act and ordered ta pay a fine of

;f,4{},0OQ/- and in default to undergo $i1:np1e

‘V impri&0nment for a pt§I’i{){i of one year. Furthsr, acting under

aw

4
Section 3:3? of Cr.P.C., it is ordemd that the fine amount
shall be paié as compenaation to the compiainant, if
recovered Against which, an appea}. was prefemtzd’ by the
petitioner before the {)iS1ZI’i(3t Judge, Karwar. “~iZ_§i3§xict

Juége confinned “the: order of conviction t7haV.+_ ‘j1’_.I:é§i¢

no irrrszgulazity or illatgality in Mg;onvicfiu1g..

petitionsr.

4. It cgf :jQ1′.”e:’ V’ counsel fer the
;3e’ti'{;i(§1}e-;~ deposited a sum of
Rs.s§:-‘,,op£§]’4V5′.M%1§ef§?§:§ Haliyal and the balance
amo11A:1t (5f no he paid, for which, he sacks

for resgsonab-16 V’

‘ for the msiaondent submitted {hat the

A].¥€f%Vfi’Ei()3.’1é:f(; borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,Q0{)/ – and ahead};

fem’ haw: btten. alapseé, even the fine] compensation

a §3;3u11t woulé not be suficicnt to meet the interest and the

manta} agony sufiéitzd by the respczrzcient.