IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE OATEO THIS THE 24"?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 200--t~:--._, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE }AWAD RA.H1r»4V*aV.: H CRL.R.P. No.3o'5/Zoos T; I BETWEEN: A' 0 A' V P.A.Chowta, S/o Koraga ChowtEa','--T. Aged about 46 years, -- Working as Prashantha"'WinesA,' " _ " Car Street, Mangaiorem _ ...P_e_fi+T£;§oner (By Sré K.M.Nataraj, Aav<océte)--- ' AND: M/s. 8a'Ia'ji --En'i;erprfi:s'es",'~_ Liquor;Deaiers,-"3.--9-"7e4S,7;-.,._ . Rosario'_ChurCh_ RO,ad,'O»M_a'ng"a_!ore, By its Provprietor"eMr';Ne.E\3fS_ri'har§, S/o N.Sudh'akar,RedO~y,'~.-"V Age4<;i'39,years',.,,"V ' " _ 1S'..':fi'oo,r_,V M.annag'ud-.d.a«'Towers, ' r'4.an.1agOdda«,_,_Mangalore. ...Respondent "' (3,)-," Sr; -A"i'=na orrea, Advocate) T_his-.A«fpetit§on is fited under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the judgment dated 18.2.2008 . = Passed"-* in Crt.A.No.21/2007 on the file of the 1 Add'i~«.,SessEons Judge, D.K.MangaIore, and the judgment and "Ar;o'rw'§cti-on and sentence dated 24.1.2007 passed in C,.C.No.60/2006 on the fiie of the II AddI.Civi| }udge (Jr.E)n.) -»-atnd JMFC, Mangatore, D.K. as This petition coming on for final disposal this day, the Court made the following; ORDER
The convicted accused is in revision”~«._agaier1stthe
judgment in Crl.A.No.21/2007 dated”
the judgment in C.C.No.60/2006 on filel”o._fA’C.iv’~iI’}:ud.ge~,
(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mangalore~.._:canVictin.gV fogrvlwloffencewl
punishable under Sectio~n_138,o’f’the i§!’egfiotiahle”fIriistruments
Act (hereinafter for shortlthe
2. i~iear1vci?._’;Ia’c$i;i:r=r’ ”
3V.erl”c)’r:.ra.j:fne “‘i5§eisis’f–.e;rr the_””‘C’o4rnplaint lodged by the
respondiéntll before”inthefiu_ri-sdictional Magistrate, cognizance
was taken and” the–_ accused was Dut to trial for offence
3r3V8~—3-f”the Act. The respondent initiated
.W.proVse’cuti«o_nl iagéiinst the petitioner for offence under Section
138″”0ef on the ground that in relation to the
in~-.__’v.transactivo’r§ of supply of liquor to the firm run by the
Cpentitii’o~ner, a sum of Rs.3,83,0G0/- became due. Towards
‘V’-____””.’disgcharge of the liablity, the accused issued the impugned
lfhcheque, which was dishonoured on presentation. Based on
the bank endorsement, statutory notice was issued which
was also not complied. The accused denied liability on
the ground that he had nothing to do with
Wines. He was only a servant and did not ,
denied that the liquor was purchasedg-from’~tgh{e..’corra~.p’lainant
and denied the amount due.*H.owevV’er_ the trriai
the complainant had establisheldythe charge’andfgconvicted
him against which was —i..r_rf.:rin’7_1inawi .l’a*;1peal.ywhich also failed.
4. As c.o~r~;.I..:Cl’p:-_be n..oVV’V”dispute that the
cheque the accused and the
comp|:ai’n’a’n»ti:has;’:t§e’nde:rged’ eyid~ence through its authorised
agent :’tha’t_it’ liquoer Prashantha Wines in
which the”~«.accuse_dl1was~7′ the Manager. Whether he was
Pr-o:_p*rietAoi’.,yor th”e~S.e.rvant is not the question. The accused
his signature on the cheque and it is not
denied that it was issued to the complainant. Mere
contentionv that he was not the Proprietor of the firm does
A not”~«_.affect the incriminating evidence tendered by the
‘complainant.
grounds afresh and has aiso reached the similar conciusion.
Since there are concurrent findings of fact recorded::’-h»y~w.!ooth
the Courts below, unless strong case is made.ou’t;–‘.ii§-oiin’ting.»
to iiiegaiity in the proceeding interference”w’ii}’_’;vb’e”~u’_n.cavii_ed»_
for. No other ground is pointed o:;J’t..:whiii»+:h”~
interference. Hence I deciine to”.set-aside{fi=t.he~’order”
impugned but confirm the____sar:ne.,_»_ The “«ti:ndinfg of guilt
recorded against the a’c.cus_ed_Lis;_i:he”refo’re._confirmed.
Even in..the:mat§§_er {re1.ati’ng’:’tto.senjtence, it is seen that
the triaf f:s’§t’ors’int0 consideration and
imposed”Fine:,t.’ot:’:::fi§s.ft’fi.,Vi3{§(Zi/饒_””‘fo’r§ a cheque covering the
a m o u of . .
4;’8._In tVhe.,r;es’uit,V’the petition fails and accordingly, it is
»'”‘AOné ‘th’j¢..r::basis of the request made on behaif of the
petitioner, the accused is granted 8 weeks time to deposit
V’ Xfthet”‘-amount covered under the sentence faiiing which he
” siaaii undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
gtax
6
On deposit, the same shali be paid to the respondent–
complainant as compensation. If the accused ha¢~.t3e.;§csited
the amount, the same wifi be adjusted to the__.3tt§eé:~hjt*;..:’ .
Ets*