High Court Karnataka High Court

Ravi Finance Corporation vs Vasu S/O Dattatraya Tikare on 24 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ravi Finance Corporation vs Vasu S/O Dattatraya Tikare on 24 October, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH Comm' 0? KARNATAKAI f ~
CIRCUYI' amen AT DHARWAQ':   
DATED Tms THE 24% BAY: 01?..QC?§f§i§E§é-';.:3é:)a'.'.1;.  V
8E;"«*oREr A' &    

THE HC}N"'BLE MR.3U3T1.<;:E 1éAM':.¢0H;éi'N...1R;F;3;)£$¥Y VA
cRL.R.9.N0V.3,Z§7'0.1_20§3--   " V}
BEYWEEN: A . 3 % 

Ravi Finance {)ozporat:ic1rt1®, '

Maruti Complex. Line  , .  ' 
Dharwaci, R}_'Vby'}:jits 9.5. F{c:iiicr;'    
Sri.Veera3:;alg€31.1da.,---';V~_ 'V    »
S/0 ShekizaI'2tgc§11da" Pati}; A_  '

Age: 4.1..y.e3:ai":3, Q(h::_:M&nag¢r 

of Ravi  Coirpozriation, --

R/0 Lahazwaa.' = 'ff-» %    .Pefitioner

(By;vs;i.}Az.s.im?p4afi, Adv)';

'  .__ Vafiil,   séatfiaauaya Tikarez,
'.5.g'e: ~40 'yr;-"arsf; Occ: Tailozing,

R/.9 Ettyagi, Bharwad.  Rcsponfient:

" Tfiis pefiticn is filed under Section 39'? C.P.C. praying

 "€<;:n$_et aside the order of remand dated 19.8.2908 pas;-aw by
" _ the  Pr}. Bis: as Sessicns Judge, Dhatwad in
7.CrI;A.No.?9/2006 at 'Annexurt.:--H' by confirming the

judgment sf canviaction dateci 23.11.2006 passed by the i

 '""Addi. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 3» cam, Dharwad in cc

No. 160/ 2002 at 'Anncx11:e-F'.

This pefition coming on for admission this day, tbs
Court made the fsnllowiing: 'R

I



i"-J

ORDER

The petitianer having iodged a complaiiit ” _

respondent committed an offence under Sec%;i.oj1.VVi38T 0f ‘§’1ic:–«..

Negotiable instnlmenis Act, 18131 :{f{§rjj.

referred to as the Act’), wa$,re4_gistérE:d ‘as C.TVG’§~V.iéf)’§1«€30 %.

by 11116 i Addl. Civil Judge and ifizgazwad. in
the plea of the reggae-1§ti::nt«_é1§<};;1§iéfi;i,.».'V thr: sulfifificc of the
allagation was that the a loan of

Rs.1,O0,(}(}Q/5 igsguega1.:'..':a 'ci:équ¢.___::1atea 7.9.200: for

Rs. 1,55,944]} V 'E+§$zté1":1§'-fiézpayment of the principal and
interest,thQ_ugh fin: case was that the mspcmdent

as, {(5 iaaiia advanced to Mr'P.T.?*umhit, i$$ucd

thrzfi <:*1:;b'A6€3uf:: for repayment of said $21113. The tria} court

wiflgaat the said incormct statement cf allegation

the plea, continued the proceedings,

in the judgment dated 23.11.2066, convicting

sentencing the: respondent, which when cariied in

-»v.\:::z’im.i.aal appeal No.79/2006 by the respondfint llemin, the

P3:1.Sessio-ns Judge: by €)I’§.C}’ ciated 19.8.2008, having neticed

the materiai inregularity in the substancf: 9f the allztgatioa

M

‘Q ‘_/

3. There is considerable force in the $1xb131iésvf{z3z;x–.§;}f5i;1rv1″€*« %

laaxned Counsel for the petitienar that the war} vtif-« .V

the year 199′? and ten years have giant: :_<)'f

the matter, there is a necessity to ciirect the» -'iriall Co1irt ='.:o '

cemmence and conclude the 5 fifiiic- i"ra'fi:1e.

4. Without intetttéziéng 51213: of appellate
court, the trial court is and couclude

the }}I'{)<'3ff€3€3.iIi5;§S'f{j(:§iIl the plea of the

aecused, in 31ny__exzaޣ' of six months from the

eiiate of se1'vi{::': <2f 'f1€73'lZiv'#3fi'-{lV3i$"'.*".}'1-'ii on the n:-ispondent.

'~ thé ":r:v§.s:3'.on prgtitiozix is disposad Gf.

Sdfj
1111135