IN THE HIGH Comm' 0? KARNATAKA AT BA§J§3A1_4{§ii2fi§; -
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAYQF' A1;{3t;sr ::::j{::g ':
BEFORE 1
THE HON'I~3LE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETF!'1;'I£1N"'No.1G6'f;"2Q(}a6
BETWEEN :
M . P. Chandmgowda
S/0. Udemane P11ttcgoWd.¥1"" --
Age: 84 years
R/on M¥fimami'--Vfi5Eé8¢ * f. ..
Joidal Post,
(3hi1unagaIur*'§}is--*_i¥:§§;t. H * ._
_ ...Pctitioncr
(By Sri Azigfacatej'
AND: % _ % H % "
Kum. B.L.Ge'-sflncw V __
D/0. F,.iI1gAcgoWriaA ' '
Agechizboxit 25 years... .....
.V "'R[o§'L'*D.N'i); 169:3, Gowry Caluvc
' ' . _ \'ija3rapi3;_"a .E2;~rf:é1;x_sio3:t
V'Chfi;ma:g§§}1;r Taluk. Respondent
(By K, Advocate)
Thivimvision petition is filed under section 39?(1) I'/W
.40.¥{TI,} Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated .'t'?'.{)8.200ES,
_ "passeci~b_§r the Acid}. Civil Judge: (-Jinfin.) & JMFC, Chikmagaiur, in
' . {;;C.'i'£:;;'348/2004 and crrder dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Fri.
' ~*Se&sions Judge, Chikmagalur in C1-LA. N9, 128 / 2005 85 etc.
This revision petitiun coming on for admission thés day, the
:. Court made the following:
, &_c11a§;¢i§sV{)f:.a;*i11g Nc.s,__1_-$989 85 14990 dated 04.07.2003 for a
gaff R:s;3;3:C5;{i_()0/-- cach, drawn on Ghickmagaiur Bistrict
V . which petitioner had mceivcd foam
N u fit.-=:.;:»o'1_1£i4eV',?;*i'1t. Ora piesentation, cheques were dishomtmred for
fimds'. The mspondent caused statutory notice.
'Fhiére was no response. Therefore, a complaint was filed
,, against pefitionmn 00'
ORDER
The ttia} Court and the appe}i£if6′–G0u§rt
concurrent findings. of guilt of _
punishable under secfien 138′ the in ‘gents ‘V V
Act, 188$ (for short, ‘th¢__Act’).
2. The brief facts of petition are
as foiiowsw ____ H
The 1téég13;,~.i;:::lEhii:E._ under section
200 G:-;’P;Tc.T..A:’::;ag§i;i:;st “‘-.;g§e::iti¢»i§er,’ alleging an ofiénce
p11nisha:;b_le” V pfhthc Act.
It is ca-_f ix’:é$pc;i1dent;- petitioner had issued twe
Head Offioe at Cllikrmagalur, towards
lead” that chequas were stoien by
ibifflthfif of respondent. Therefore, petitioner was
a fi’$noc ptxnishablc under section 138 of the
_ AHA lame! to pay a fine 0f Rs.5,00€)/- in defauit to
h ‘i:1;1pIison1:aeI1t for a period of tines months and aifio
aompensatican of R.-5.6,6O,O()O/- to respondent. The
pcfifioner had filed Climinai Appeal No.128/2005. The
3. The It,-armed trial Judge on appIeciat:£oz:;_ _
of respondent and her witness namely PW .,
and documentary evidence
held cheques in question warn: diS:.(!2b4fl!l:”gE’. >’
rccoverabie debt.
4. I have heard
5. Befbre _1:nj;{ mm had contended that
at xtlcvant heart aihnent and
had antjustxiré’~tiié’1’1:”g1ana§efiiei1t—3f iiais pmperty to his son.
The yo1Viir;1ger’t)zt§i§I:%9;::tc1 ‘a_ “However, petitioner did not
N.
icamed Sessions Judge an rc–appreCiation flf M
confinncd the fixldings recorded by triai ‘
6. In View of <:oncur,mnt
learned trial Judgfi and r-appcnate ..;;;dg¢«;%, it is fa: V _
this Court to refer to a decisi0n":x:i§Ofl&d 981
(in the Case of State' pf Kémmi,@.: \/45;'-.'&P11ttijifii1aiia {Hath
Jathavedan Nan1boodi1*i),' Court has
hel4:1:- V %' A V
v_tEi_e:f%§fore, it would not
be apfzxxjgjgz-iiate Court to re-
_&f1iiE: t%¢§iin-:’.:rce and OQIII6 to its own
c£fIL_Cfu.si0a_ “t.hév.sé4*r,1é,..when the evidence has
already” V1:-$6152′ by the magishate as
5w::i1 as flrls; ASes’simf:s Judge in appeal, unless any
Afeat1iVfe””ié.Avbr0ught tn the notice of the
_q;iig_h'<C~neiirt,_wi1ich would othcnvise tantamount
._ gt of justice. On scrutinizing
A .__thc,iz11_L'p};zg11eti judgment of the High Court: from
V tlwfiforesaid sia11d~poi11t., we have no hesitatian
V " ato dome to {ha <;:{:cn.c111s;i0n that the High Ciourt
* céercceded its guxisciictitaxs. in inierfzéring with the
convictiern of the rtisp-ondent by Ie–apprecia£:i11g
the em} evidence. The High 0011:": 3139
A-;3§ Ua