%%%%% § !
5 F % X % i%13EL1'HAmADY'rALU1c
wr nnmuwmamna HEWW MUUKE Mr mfiflfikflihiflfia HIQEE-5 CZQUQ? C)?' KARNATAM H§$§*§ CQURT OF KARNATAKA MESH CQUR? OF mmmmm HEGH CG
' m 'mm mm: ccnmrozr KARNATMA I
DKFED ms um 19m my or magma L A % 7
BrmmEflf%}}§{%%%A %
1'HEmH'BLE z~m.Jus'rxi.n:
----v~--._--u
ARI? i ii:
';=~:::s/ca
Aennaaour 37
(3? As srwrxv. ADV. ,1
?%%%%%mm :
' V Wfifllfifi
_ A rramfin, muck,
S{C}.AIB ERTD'SH.VA,
-- PCIST,
[BY smnmnsrnmmamnm, FOR
me: E' B E}E3I-IPAHDE,
€\\}m/\«
Wwwmsw W mgwfi a«m§w Wmwwfia am mmwm aw-,m§~§ %§°wmw3;@%:§§% ma ;g2ms:w"%$:::: mm Wwwmw ::§@ .E;fl£"?a€"3i'§$' z;-':«¢»'~;1=m.. w%wm'mm mm mam» M?
am» zmmmmmm. wmm mmzm U?' mn._xjNmAam.. wmfan figwum 92" KA.KNfl§'&K.& mam QZQUR? OF imfiwmfim MGH mmjem Q? mmfizmm Mmfi $0
TI-ES cmmmx. APPEAL m:1.E1:m; 8.3??a4)'x':'_.R.P.c',
my me. ADVGGATE F012 ms 5
THAT THIS H<)N'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED S$T.
ASIDE THE .JUDG1hmN'r .AND '%£_)RDER"'* DATED A
25.07.9003
. msszn av .–k
mmamnnn, D.K.,, IN C;C;.EQ.1559_6f199j8 –
ACQUFITING TIE RESPQNDEifTlfiCCUSED’ ma THE
OFFENCES LmnEE vSEi3′!’iGH 138 0? NJ.
This Appflafl 1; this day, the
“:v:” é}IrD–j.”.Tt1E.NT
against the judgment OF
26.079003 in C.C.Na.1559511998
— 11′! Com Mm-hm» Dale-*====~’
fippellant 5. the ‘ and the
% :: §«§pt§ndentistheaacuaad beforeth::TrialCourt. mum
t, for corrvemar1:c:a’ the parties” are referred to
their amtua befcre the Trial Court.
d*”‘”
m:%:;;%. ;§”§%§’§:§’%.%’%§ -.%’% mmm %=§%%%E«»§ mmvmw W mwmfrs §%4:,=’:z:§%»§ wmwmw gm ,2;§§§”m:*:; mm Ww.mW~2»:m mmE% V
W’%$”&;'<"§"-§:f"§'z'%-gT":"31§"é:'4"§% ~€3.a2""§ $??$§.$"§£""'a:'"'&§ M
mmrvc
WFK'W9'flil wwwmm wr mmvfggnjfmarumm WEWW wnwm U?" fifimmflfiflfifi. %"'§%'3.":%Eé§"§ Cfliéififl" {W3 §"fi€E§é"§ Cfigfifiwf Q? %fi¥H"%§fi3'"&KK HXGW CW?
3. The mmplaizmnt and his
Huasain mama into an Ag-W of ‘ «ezvr.§’
Jammzy 1996 with the accrued for a %
Linda’ this , Ex.P1,
mm of 123.2 Lakhs towards
mpednd requests, demands
21.03.1996 and corne
fiafimrd to menu: the
amount! V055-..-redtza pay
the mam.-a and liquidated
damage :31′ the Aj sf
meawuwdiaauwa
a sum of 1zs.ao,,oeqI-. Gm
sf cheque, the same cam to be
% ~qfith” an endxxrsennnt finmmcm fzmxis”.
» y V; of chyaque was bmughtto rm ntoim
by iaxuing a latwyerh nsténe on
Though the accused a the
receipt c:feompMu1atfi’a lawyer’s mtice as p¢rEx.P’7, he
t;
Wvkfiwfifl $0 ififlflfi I-39%”! V}§W.iVMHV)l M; 135193 B-QEMH mwmmnmn .m mnrm MQMM wuwawMMww»5m’;zm:A.i$zmn»
In jmnlm
‘-sf\lVrc&’&\zJ’!2mE”=S;Q-aé?\i 15″». fi\lf&l%I’Is um
fil'”‘ ammmwmmmmm }Z””H*”WE’$é mwwaw WK” mmmavmwamm fl””fl$fi.$l”? mwrwsaw Mr mwmwmmmmmam mums?! wwvwma MM’ mmmzwwma-mum iwwm twwwaw Mu zM~’k%k’u-mamLr%JW Mata:-we -M
sailed to comply the mana made therein nor ;/ [ F
tha samn. Having no ether almrmfive, A
flung a oomglaint under Sec.200 cr.P.e%§[jm- tn:
pmfishabh mm Eamon 1%
Insirumtmt Act.
sicl;$.«:1r.i an apprecaam ‘ 3 cf thg:
1113 impugned ind;
in pmue that the acacusaad had 1ssuu1′
I Z émcation. Hmne this appeal.
firti argtzmmlm on both the side and
gum-usscad thc cntim appeal papers.
{7L%[.//\,
WWW§W%§%WW -3?’ I§I§n!’§’\ Ll£\!E$.$ uuwawmmwm _fl#”\ ifllfhrtfitv. RMEMEIHI mmnwaummwmmm so-In. 1,-manna’:-4. I~’.'{Ll’m’91£fi
Lmkwmavwmfimmmnmmn mum aunflmnmtu sen
www – mwrvusvw wwmnnwnws an In
IVMWEKII6 wwwmm ww nr%:fi§ux?@%3WimWa mww mwwm WE” Kai’-§%NMM%%.M WWW awwm EM’ mmmmm WGM fifiifm” 0? Kfis@NA”W£KA MGR 60E
5. Ex.P1 $3 the t dated %
punchasem and accusad an
Ez:a.P2 and P3 are the lawym-‘5
1-egnnrma sale dead in j %
mm. These eviamor
W-1 estab]iah%V had been a
u~anmamn’ the accuaed. It
‘3 the. apacfié the accuser}
mm rmea.–;1 %§¢ adrmrme” mun: with
the Agr% of Sale.
andaa apa1’t%enta%eadthe
. aoctzsed as pm’ E’.:1:.F4 for a sum of
-. ms pmbabzsm a-amaction mmm the
Wmmmw $0 mam mm wvxvemm m mam Hem-a mmmmw m mam mm wwmmw .m_mm_—g méw %Wwmm .m “mm 1…
Wfigzflfifi V’w»\’w<5"KM"??VeW "éaflic Y-Wc{4"'"V1¥Vn'&'£a'§""b93Vt<""¢:91'Vv?f"'fi- §$Q%WBfl "M*'a;_<:=*¥u¢'
M" mmrzwmwmm W%%W¥"& %W%fi%E W? wmwzmmimmm WWW" Mwmmm mar' mwmmmmammm rnwn wwwmn we awmmnmmuemmmm w
complairsaxt tn the amused V
dishonor the chiaque.
achwwhdgmmen sT@ad by
received E::t.P6, the
of me. accused
lawym-‘s nntime. sgfltua accused is
to be by the accused
esaidaznw éf am mam- ‘ :1 cf
‘V
-.V%o: qgmion ma fahely mmm the
Judgé; the cheque bebnging to the accused
” ‘_ ..mm by the wmwdmam M alum” have
police caompiaint and inst:-uctad his mum mt
the accused has not stand on what
clatethachsqxmwaa eomitted thofc by ccamplainantand
fifl Hag” WWWKWMMWW on-MW lflflflfl Mifiifi vemwawmaawm Jr’! Ifinflfl uni” wwwawmmwm ‘.am mwmmm mmam mu-wwamrmwwm mm uunmw m
ma mmmumwnmm emaww mwwum wt’ mmwfigufjmzmmm mfiwm mwwm Ur” wmwmmflmm Mmrfl mmwm QM’ gfiggwflgflgfig Mgggw ggwfl-gm fig Kgflflflgfigfi REG” 60%
when he cams: to kzmw abaut it and
Fizrthnr, it is noticed from the rwa5td”th.’a1;_ V’ ‘
not g1ven’ a police c.omfia1z’:.t’ not @131?’ n
about the theft of aehnqaa. F:§i*§ti*1c
cheque in qumtfipn W the
camp1a’maz¢» ‘V ofttfia case
m has
zasm tn imed thechcqua.
% clcmied has sigxamm an the
£ signature ofthe accused and by
power Linda Saws at the Efidmce M
_ _ the afmaturc found an thecheque in question
: §§*®Vthatai’theacc1Jaad. “I’i:ms,i1:’na=een1:l3atthecmque
question. was imuedhy the aocuwd. ‘I’hezwe£:re, 3
tpraumsztion arm under Sec.138m of rm Negotiabie
= r;\’_
§%i;i5”,§;:sa/W,§,.WN¥VX 1&0 lflflflfl Q-éflilvfi Wmwmmw $0 mama lvéffififl VMW.l.V%MW}§ JQ 3.31103 i-EEEEM mmmrmma my .i%£”i€_”fiZ3 E»-EQMM W’MW.i%M?;ve?;’W’% mm gammy M
wmuww
fi’W;l7H4€ ‘4taxI’%u5f7WoJ”‘¥Vs.W Wuflii Bwmwvnxnfinwm
M’ wwwmmym mmm Vm<..3%,.N*€.8§ Ma" mmmmmmmmm fluwi; wwmams mm" mmmmmmmnm mmww amwwmw W; m\.?'&Nav;n%e.srwnw% Iii
_ .Ir15trum:a:nt Act that the eonaideaatiml has pamsedfi :
on to thc accused unlm the con1:t'£ujé*ia V'
mac, the accused has fiihd tn that
ma mm In the:
9. cxzxntends
” yy ” PW–1
“E ‘3 cheque in qum’l:;’x:u:1
ts+wardsadwnr:ae ‘ _ teddamw. Butit
vi: in qtzestinn was mt
….. E W ta
‘ in the £3. ? the T. I
f.’.our£”‘*i§ dsamaasing the mmlahit fiksd. by the
a I dmfine to aecept this argument if the
counsel for the; -acmpiainant. ‘I’hc evidemtrse of
A and the zwermentn made in the mmplahzt. are
£im:::nibrznitywi1:hmx:h::sthet*az1dIEndm-
Whn-%ittowardnad1mne¢ammtortowards
§Ll,\,»”\,
Wwiwmfiw gm ifififfifl Mfifw ‘imwwmmwu J” ififlfifi Mmam M”§l’WflW’M)fl’§¢’Mi mm mnsmmm mmssm amuzwawawwm .§$a£”‘L awn:-an unit: mnzwuwmiwwm am awmmm Lit
awr” smmmmmmmmm mam-fl mwwflfi W? WQEWW mwmu WT flfiflmififififleflfi flflaivw £…K,.¥%mi!§€i§ $.,;M~° fifl§§W&§flfim iv-wggafiw ggfiggggg’ fly Kgg;N3yg”g’;5’K’3 wig” gwi
fiquidamd damm, time accused ia liable to ” _
liability under the cheque. same Ak
needfoz-%air1g the 88.111333 by
muidamd damm the
accused is liable Iunder the
10. held all poms in
man: tug the irnpugzmd jufi,
cozyziuda that <:-complainant
the acctlaad has haued the
of th: Trial Court 73 crmtrary' to
2 A' wan mcmti and im awn finiing on other
tithe 'I'ria1Caur£: is liable to be set aside Fm
raamns mud above, tin amm-
Cj\\'_xj\,
WMVLVNKVX 2&0 LXEEQB Hflfii-3 wwmmw fifi iflflfifl Hflfl-§ mmmmma JG £35163 Iwiflkfl mmmmme $0 LXEEQQ Mflil-vi mwwmw $0 LEQG3 EH3
-W-m.mmnm=–H-mu–warm-W-may-wnmm 1-mu-‘ 501331’ as mmmeum mm§”m’un’r OF mmmmra mm-1 mum 02$ mmmam mm 610
10 mmmzazmns
GRDER A ..
judgment dated 26.07.2003 in .x(f:/.€..’gv.1’3:’;-“.’iSV.’;’>_S I’:It’Evl
passed by tin JMFC. — m % ,”
11) for the:
ofimnas of the nagoaahxa
is awed to pay
a 511: am..m,cm;- Kinny Thousand) and in
Empriaonment for R term of
fi::;.t~- fineamnuzfi, the mwzmmm’ is
A’=, £:’sva1-d¢d.. a gm- LAA 11 of Ra.85,000l- (Rupeu Eight
Sd/«-v»
Judge
dhi
E
§
g
5
§
§
3
E
E
E
E
3
f
i
a
E
Q
5%
E
3
E
i
E
§
3
5′
Q
g
E
Q
“§’
§
3
E
E
E
Q
X
E
Q
3
%
84
Q
%
E
§
§
w”=:=asa;mwmW am “mam mm