1;»: mg HEGH caum GE' z<ARm;rA:§é" _
CRIMINAL REVISION V;9}33'1'£;::,{é 0;t}3 V
BETWEEN :'
imtiyaz sg:;udajigaf;""~V.. >
Aged-a?aout=.-5€}--y}::«az's, 3
Goo: fiiiéiacgétg, R/ix" _T-§'.':"{é'. 119,
Bhutétm Bhaf ifivfirrdes St. ,f
Panjimgfifaté. .5.P€%:;ifioner
(337 Sri 3':}o11§$1}i, §%:ib§Q--f:iat€)
' S1'i..;Ra33d€:sh«§abu3:a0 Patti},
A ~.. fi;.ged['abé;:1;i 48 7 years,
'R,/'s:~:' Rai§;°i:¢2;£2$T1', 919$ §0.3'?,
Beigaum; _v ...Res§3sonde:nt
{By Si°§§£a11gadh31' S1 Hasakeri, Advoeata)
V. 'E"h:is pefifian is flied unfier Seciion 482 «::::p.z::. pzaying
$31: sctwasida the orxier/judgment yassaé by JMPC EV,
Eielgaum, dated 1.8.2906 £3 C.(:,r~:o.104--/' 20% and by Qrdm'
'"passe{i fiy ieamad F'FC--iI and A&éi.S.J. Beigaum in
Qr1.A,E\¥6.,1?5;'20{)é dated 28.1,2§98 am}. :0 dismiss the
ccrmpiaizlt by aiiava-fling this petifion'
This petition e::0mi:1g on far aémissimz this clay; {ha
Cour: mack: the fallowing:
ORDER
There are concuntnt findings of the Cozifis 4_
pttiitioncf has csmmitteéi. an esfisfiag put:iSi1ia§:=1év._:;.:1fiv;sr ‘
Sectian 138 of the PH, Act
2, 111 View of tha cgncaifréiif f’1I1dVi1:.g$’ 5-i5€Q%§ieci by the
Courts below, it is 11e2%::~:ssar_§? tfi in 3 iiéégiisibn reporttd
in AIR 1999 s.:€a€:c5di3,:g:~;s._f<jg_f fixefpuxjpose {sf satisfying itself as
'V 1%: t:}1eV'fr::'z::1;fiv:<:t1};:::ss, legaiity Q1' pmpriety of any
' E'§§::;t1:Vi11{g.s, s€'i'3' t':*~:2:1ce Gr cvrdezz 81:': {ha said
3 T. paws}? cannct be equated with the
San fippfifiaifi Court mar can it be tmatcd
¢€:iI.er: " as a secofld Appeliattt Juzisciiction.
" 'therefore, it Wonk} not be appropriate
for the High Court {:3 m-appmciai€ 111$ evédancfi
and mm: ta its own co-1f;clusio:1 93:: the same
Wham $113 Evidénce has aiifiadg bfififl a§3pr€::=I.ate(i
by the Magisfiatc as W533 as {ha Sessions Judge
N cg«.Mem
fig: apgealy"
,..«-w
3. The irszainézd Cotmsei for petifionm:
fefiowmg fiubmissions;
I.
i3’et;it.io;’1er dié got hiavci-.m§nSac.i’§:iGn with
complainant. H: had :i$:S:1€d
cheque as secuzV’it§,§ ir; o}:1e”o1_:” big; i’1éé12 €i7s”‘fiame13a
‘I’c::13.k:ari in m1atio;1___L:fe..v$on_;m ciii§.tf§2ns_éic{ion and
the Chequéftrzaa com@iaman£ had
celludcd their present
COmP1§1intr .._ . u 7 ._,
J. _ A”‘1’fic’:j3e:§:itio:9§¢r.V}1:–}e;s”1~,::sfi: residing in Goa frem the
._ — xiotice Jgeé under Seciion
” iifof “Act sent to
= ,;ps’*E:Zti§)’;§:1e,i~, ‘ ‘a~:;’: Belgaum, is invalid. In the
6 address :33?’
c:ifcum§t;m€es, ze3pond<:~13.t~comp1ainant haé
'fgzilsd ta prove that petitiermr is guiity of an
* 4V€r£'f§i;1ce punishaizrie under Section. 138 of tbs E'-5.}.
' "AE:t,
.4… 'Regaréirzg first SZ1b3S£1.iSSi0fl, if is necrassary is mfer
,€:;;«._c ér'£éfi€d cap}? cf eieciroi 131$: pmpamd duiixzg the year
in this docummzt it is 33:10am that petitiarxzer is a
resident of Beigaum, The netice under Seciien 138(5) 91' the
§\§ .1. Act was $63.1: to fesiéezztiai ad(iZ'f:SS cf pctitianer. The
petitionar had drawn we fiisputeci Chcque 9:1 ("Samara Bafik,
5
:4:
Belgaum Camp Br331:::h,’3(~:’1g311I11. The peiitia:1sr.«ji1éz:$–._ bié;¢n
oparafing the said bank account. Hf: has HO§.”§1}fQ:f1:’f;:{iEi
Banker about chazige: cf his adclregsw.
5:3. The ieaxfleé Ceunsei f01*. 1p€f}.fiéiT:mfT’§:v;Afe:-;fg*1.’f.zg”
fividence: 0f respondent w01ii€1vL4″S1_;bn1ii fés§;.g§’i:”<ie;i§t. has" V
admifiéd that petitioxzfir haS——1;i€ftfi"*»-.rfiSi€1iiigv…éi§vE303: T116
an.:1mis;sion is net :113t5c<;fi:i?Jc:£:€:7;_ cfiifiegétiegi by the learned
Ceufisai for ps:titir;:1er.; "
:’–jTh¢ r::VVsV*,V;’;’:.:V:1:§i €%;;tt”13§{s…ad{::itted that petiticner E1213 basin
xfisicifizg B€}:g&€1Vfi1LV8£1駔-fflfitéfibfishfid busimzss at Goa
j ‘ ” ‘E.’he abgbiré dérumants ‘£335-‘(}1.1iii”}. pram that geiifioney is
.;;;.Be1ga1:m. Thcmferc, isguance sf lsgai naiicfi to
I édeifess of petitioner at Belgaum canmfrt bfi found
fézuit *.§?ii§1§. §;E’§€2€:1 in the causa ‘title of Cfimpiaini filcé before
nflfilfi fi’i:31«:'{‘/aufi, pfifitiflnfif is shown as rfisidezzi of Nabiét Shae
iéaaialkargaiii, Béigamm’ In fact, summens isguveé hy
” Chart. was fififvfifi 6:; £116 said address, Thsmfemg
pstificizmr 93:11:01: ha heard ta say that §1€ hag Cfiéififid ti: be 21
V’
residezzi 0f Beigaum and notiss sent to his adéregs at
Efiéigazzm ix izzvaijd. J\p_ Q
7. The Ieanled Cbuflssi for pg:f§.ti0ncr* hag; .
the said Tmukazi ta prove that f.)€;ii’!’.i0}’:1€3.1’ZT. -.§i§iV1’C:’L§
blank cheque to said ‘I’0u1<st~4'1'i.__§1}
transaction. The pe'£itio:1::1#;VL'L"'V..iE;a3u IT1 Qf' '._fl@_.§¥ab:1fished the
cixeumsianccs uneier ¢ame'H§§: possessirm
0f the chsquei In. -. i}:1€ presumgationf,
available anger 213$ "§:a9..:§f the rm. Ac: are mt
rebzlfirrd dé net find any grounds
{:3 jiiégment.
A<:::~o.:"d%inv;g§3*,. £23 dismisseci',
V Sd/…
….. JUDGE
St?
L,