IN THE HIGH COURT op’ ”
cmcurr amen AT Dumwgfi V ‘
335.1329 TI-HS Ti-IE am
THE 1-mzsrnm
CRIMINAL RE¥.?:a:.;onI1″;6iE ‘riT’1;=:{$2a._Ho.fi055’}’2oos
BETWEEN:
Shri Psrakash Vifhahac Patil j. V ‘
Age; 60 years,”VQt3c;.._Ag:»ag::u3:au,xi: ” _ V ‘
R/0.299/1.1 Gokyds Sh:”:d”I?§oad’, }3<~: igaum
""" …PETITIONER
(By " .
fi?
. V The Béigéulm Mcrchamzs
‘ ‘~;’C1_{)–<f:p'{."§r€:§iit 'Society Lid.
.«}Sit2;::1fte§1"at"T.189/ 2 Srinivas Buildixzg
. Eelkax' I3agi;,"8e1gaum
A Rcpressznésid, by its Manager
V' * Rio. Vadagaoa, Belganm
S131ig"—Lzaxémikant Makhavafi
Age";_2$ years, Dee: Mmmger
. . . RESPOKBEHT
(83? Sri. J. SK Shetty 8:, Assscéatcs, Advscaies}
This Criminal revisien petition is filed %.El§:1dé:1=V_'V1$ar%:§§E:*?a}i¢: _
397 85 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the }.*F_;__tt03::isV?'i:1 V'
N41:-.lO2'?']2Q03 on the £313 of the HI JMFC,*'8e3lgau'mV and
{3;:.A;::pea1 NG.2(}6[2{}06 03:: the 51¢–iiaf' Fast 'f'rac_?k_ T€.L:§u11ft' H} 311:1
skid}. Sessions Judgé, Beigaum 31%.,/,,::v ' ' » A
This mvision petiti0:1.'c_omi11gV"3:):1 far ,aJCi.1:a.Vi$si1§; {Exits
day, the Court made the feflozxfiflgz
mi) E F:
The zgaatter is f§r.¢&”a§mis§§is:zirL The learned
Counsel if V ” “” H
2; “”fId};’i’¢;f3§.”:§’,i f*:€:>t::fc11 :’mI1′: .fi£iiiiV:1gs ef the Trig} Camrt and
firs? Aéypééiaté ‘[t}1_Lé. “€. Jf3g:titi0:1er is guiity of an {}ff€I1(?t’:”t
punishaE3uie–..g}An£¥.qf Seéfj§)’;}.”~*’?138 Gf Negcstiabie i3’2S?3″‘E1I:<1€}i:tS Act.
V. A_ 'I'1:_s3' Cf<}ux1A'has.._1£:jvected the defefice of pciitiemtr t}<aai:_ ha
~ §;la;"3_Vis–SfiIx~?€i<..§1i:::pt1te{i cheque tar) mspsndent as securiijgs fer
".. T116 ma} has rejected the dafence of
pet§':i§1"i£~ :; fiiét he had éischargmi Email.
' . _ H 3. As couizi ha seen from the gudgmenw of the Courts
Ezfiaiaw, petitiener has not progiuced any éoeumexztary
evidence to pmve that he haé ziischargegi {ha loan, The trial
Court :31} proper appreciation cf evidence: acistiuced by
W A
f'\) ,
r
_ V of a,d_;ég1i3$~§on.
complainant has heid the petifiener guiity
punishahle under Section 138 of Negotiab1¢~’§~n.s§fru :€:é{n’£s ‘V .
4. The first Appellate Coizgt
evidence has confirmed §”u1di3i_g£;.§Jf thév-Tgial
5. On mconside’ra_tionAvAV’5f”‘ ‘jug:¥gm£:fi’t7s Vfof Courts
beiaw, I find that Cm?:~£s:_”‘1;;-;:o;%::’ hgaéée. ‘;1$t_’_.cc;mmi£ted any
glaring {“§I’I’0t’S in,_::3.dg)pI’e§§£é1f;i:£j:3i::0f jev§f¢§c§1;écI:’ I
6* in; fiat find any greumis ta
illtfirffjzffi with ‘i}.::?: _1T;ji9ug3f;:E€a.:?;V” jvdgmarrm
Ac6rrj.ir;gly; pwetition is dismissed; at the stagtz
Sd/-3’
Iudgé
_gab.!”‘ ~ ”
2.’£:€:i3.i.:’.é1::. Vi2f