A
IN THE HIGH cevm OF KARNATAKA AT _
BATED THIS THE 925*" DA?' ééF*'I¢£.éuéc_::1e;:<,
BE;foRE .. 3 A. V A T
THE HONBLE MR.vJL1§'F3,CE .i{ 'R;-_*»&m\x_"'§%s:r§i'2~*V+.:V:"'
CRIBHNAL RE vz.:~s:z_QN Pg;-"fiigif ;=I. 3 é'?;"/2505
BETWEEN:
Shivanandafifigikar V
3/9 Gafig3dh3''a'?*¥$'3; .V
Proprietor V' . '
Sinxzapaonieshiyari EizLe14pzi3§$s'
Sri Sub--3'amai:1§ra £3é:3s?ae}'xsrs._ '
Cihurch Roa[d7."v_., H
Behiné, same Medic
Pd Exténsicn '
[}avanagéit:_4 VA _ ' . " Pciifiom-":r
V"(EL'-.}'»'i Mahcsh R Ugypin, Adva}
§}§;«§$;AV"%;§iix1a;;,éij'V..
Sfp VA}i]3;v'}_4f)j}1" Efiao
R] 6' D. No.3624, 2*" crass
,. ' st': Me:-i n":.Roa<i, M130 8 Biock
" Davanagers Respondent
(By Srti Jagadcxtsh Maudajgi, Adv}
This crimifiai mvision petition is filed ugndér Section
397(2) Cr.P.C, praying ‘to set aside the judgmtmt and order
dated 2-9-2006 passed in Cr}.A.No.70/06 on the file of
AddLS.J., FTC-1, Davanagem and the: judgment and mfier
mentioned in Exs.I}–1 85 2. Further, a suggcsticsn xfiaég’-gm; ta
FEW. 1 that 636$} aficr rctccipt {sf amount as undc1r?_:«Ex:;’»£}f–i
13.2 he has not returned the cheques — Ex,-F.’} t-5:) ..’.E;:1″<-3*' u
petifioncr and P.W,1 stated that siiice 'nofpzgjd
the amount of R352 1akhS,;i'1f_. haS".:§dt
chéqucs to petitioner, hawavef' ag:imi;ts– amount
aavcrcd under said améyfint covered
undsr chréqua -j EX.P.;_ the same?
Oftf:011I’SC undiér’ N qx;héi1’issx1§§ancc: of Chflqllfi has
been _.:AiZTt$ c’:3′;zf.iz::1A#’.:s~*t::’ ét prcsumpfion wfl} aiways be
availablé *favéu1″‘° of the cheque, that the said
ch;-zgéic has litfffiiu Vfisslvisd tczwarcis rcpaymcfit of any legally
rf:;:§{3x:¢:£§;b14.;’v:iA’€lg:bt or other liability. Howcvcr, in the instant
Ex,D1 and 2 which havfi been admittcé
£116 petitioner has rsbuttcd the said
prcsfimfifion avaflablc in faveur sf 1’CS}}O1}£3f:I1’Ii and ihctrcfoxr:
” Vi¥;~srv:;:S fer thc responéent to prom: his case according to strict
VA V. ,V_..3:§’%1l$s cf evidence, but the respondent has failed to do 19:12,
when 21:: adntxits that pefifioncr has discharged part of his
liability, he should haw: txplaincd before court the Iegafity cf
,
__ 2
the amount covered under the cheques
held the petitioner guilty of the ::3fi?’:nCc’_ ‘-§Lnd};-;- V
Section 138 of the N.I.Act the mTii’st have
the said Cheques in di$charge’–s_:§i”~3:gy VV”:r;{1%ii31é:dcbtV’
or other iiabiiitg. If o11v}3,r…a “&p30fi1iif undcr
chttque is icgaiiy re,,,/
4.:”.:;.:._–/ \
\
lrzarned sessions judge, inspitc of coming to the <:o3:1:_::._1f_usio1:1
that amcpunt cavcrtd under £1x.B.1 and 2 and tbs
covered under the cheques Ex.P.1 and 2 arc: Q-aka *
wrongiy convicted ané scntsnccci; zigu VV
incormct and iiicgal and is liable teibc: :é.€£;é1si(i¢."~ '
8. “¥’hs1*¢:fc>m, this rcvi3$i6n.. pcfiifidén is ‘ Then L’
impugned judmcnt and <:;r€}rr: the
trriai C{}’L1I”t§§1é’i}} bC gécfzgggcm tic. ma.
Sd/u
Tudcre