III THE maxi mum ox 5 _
cmctm amen arr p§1Aawg.:.~’j:., A %
DATE!) THIS my; 15% Daft 01% ‘V:
‘$59-33 M % ‘.
mm Hownm mt. JUsr1§$”E:§i.n_,
cmmxmn
CHANNAPPAS,’ Q Amja’1.jiV’
AGED ABOUT4¥?”YEA;R.S”‘-fju, – H
R [A NEARVMAISIAE-E}§IGESHWAR_f§’Eh§PLE
MAHA1:;ING1=m:,,frg:-3;’ Mu~:r)_1»1oi., _[)’E’S’I’ : BAGALKOTE
PETITION ER
(BY§;jR: 2s4Rtfn’mf:JAYA TATA BANGI, ADV.)
BA3AvAsvxs*-;.’._: BAGALKOTE
RESPONBENT
THIS PETYPION IS FILED UIS 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO;
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKUT PASSED IN CRL.A.No.8/2009
Qxvw
RATED 05.02.2009 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO BEPbfs1’r_ A09
THE AMOUNT BY THE PETITEONER T0 THE;~«Ex1fENT._oF
ENTIRE CHEQUE AMOUNT AND FURTHER ;)f1’RE<:riz3r:T."f£*o'.'_
DEPOSIT 12% PER ANNUM IN THE CASE THE««APi?Er'§L FAIL_S.–« .. A
THIS PETYTION coM1m.___oN 'LFQR AI:uis'a'i;s:;._<%1p;q,:':
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FQLLQWINQ;
% R
In this tliaz pttiiéioiicf in question, the
intcri1:aOfiier §i;ate&:?§};"S.(}'2,V200§'._'i1i" Cr1.A.No.8/2009 passed by
the Sesfiipzfi H Despite service of nofice, the
1'csponden1? Atxfiéwrévpmsentcd. The impngcd order
V. 'thy: Judge in the facts and circumstances of
with law and I find no justifiable
gmgnd t§'i%.it.«;r§::%¢-with the same. However, four weeks mm' s is
-V ‘f9r.i”iae petitioner to deposit the amount as per the
u x V order passed by the Lower Appellate Court.
giw with the above obsmvatioas, V dismissed.