= _ $g1s.BALAK:::sHNA, H.C.C:.P.}
T0 SET Asm§:_ fjt:§;E ORDERS D'I'.?'/I/2096 mxssm) 13? THE 3.3.,
E=:ODAGU,~. MAQIKER: we CR'L.A,NO.32/2000 AND THE ORDER
"§f:},:2*?:;.a:s,r2%:i'oe PASSES BY THE PRL.{3¥ViL JUDGE {JR.}3f~L} man)
_ m.Fc5_ EMADIKERE, IN c:,c1:~s0,20é/2955.
BETWEEN: _ %
}3.M.MEDAPPA,
8/O.LA'TE.MACHAIA}~i',V_ .
MAJOR', E2jA'F.BALAMU_RI v1LLp_.r::3;, " V.
MADEKERI 'I"ALL1.K;. K{§;I)_A_GL?E}}S-'.{'. 1;. PE'I'I'I'IONER
{BY SR; Li=;r§§g;:z1éI;Afi;{AR;_'AD*»f; V
Mm: _ T V . .
THE SECRETARY, * _
NAPOKLU GREKMA PANQQAYT-gig,'
MADIKERI TQ. 1;--:>:_3A4:f;L; 2::a1:::'»';".'~' .. RESPONDENT
iiiiii
~. "'T?:?;».c, PRAYING
THIS PETETEON COMENG ON FOR HEARING THIS BAY,
ORDER
This revision petition is filed to set asids ‘.
dated 7/ I/2006 passed by the I§3&E.I’fi$d ” V’
Kodagu, Madikeri, in cr1.A.No.32/Qotizossjazid
aside the order of conviction passed by the smpc, ” %
Madikeri, in (3.0. No. 2099199 g1at§§i;~527;4/2éOo;s
2. Brief facts at’ herein
flied a private petitiener
that the ” of the mutton stall
situated ” baianoc of auction
amount Ji:{i:.eV ‘:_%}298¢’§;fE>’éV~”pstitioner issued post dated
chsqua. for RsL42,’?8{)/ §”‘di4’3.£vn on Parana Farmers Service
{“E0–;:q§ei4ai:.i\;’s “3Qcisty””Li«n1ited. When the said cheque was
on 16/6/1999, it was
_dish§t:;asL13f«3d.VL’.i’~”<i:1 the gsund of ixzsufficient funds.
' H 'A 'T 24/6] 1999 the respondent/complainant got
i'_»§S'?._£i£ti'*é" demand notice and sent it by Regd. Post as well
VT .: 'as~ calling upon petitioner to pay cheque amemzt
9' [within 15 days. Inspits of service of natice, revision.
,1'
,1 /«v
. ,. /;
.//
,-‘3′, ° \
I
#3
III
petitioner fajied to pay the amount and tht3I’€ifGFC, a _
complaint came to be fiisd. After taking *
recording the sworn statement, 3 _case”wé3 regisfyéfifedt’ arid V
summons was issued to the Hmfie
appeared through counséj V. t it . % wast V tréttorded
whereixl he has adt1:1itte(:1_V_ the
offence Th6refore;””A;v1E:atti¢dg§}:;~M.’i%{§i–;.”–b:§:_V:éh order dated
27/4] 2000 petitioner to pay
fine of fafling to pay the
same, to for 3 months, which has
been chzgiiengeti féefone the learned Sessions
tnémfs to ttétiisnxissed. Hence, this revision.
1 gven by the revision
Vtfictitionér/aécutééd for the plea recorded on 2′?/4/2000
H he has accepted his mistake that hrs: had
g3ii{::1″£». Vtné cheque without depositing meney into his
V It is not the case cf the revisitm petitioner that
has not understood the crater and it was neat expiained
to him by the Court in the language known to him or
,/:’/”=
fig! ; _ d,
i ‘W ,/
ug/_/!
,/-‘
N
ought to have stated that he was a deaf and e§e.”,f”
plea was recorded by the trial Court, it cIea1*’ijf,?
that the petitioner/accused has Zuiidereteod «
answer. In fact, petitiener lizen
recorded by the trial Court the ‘V
hearing the petitiorzer 2:0: arise.
When ence the plea not entitied
te challenge V» the c.-rozier of
eozrvéefion the trial Court based
on Said = taken by the
petitioner”t1;atA%he~,is’ and the trial Court has
not rfifxd’ Qvee to? him properly and he has not
pleeecannet be accepted. Therefore,
Se$«$i_e:€e»*:Judge is right in diemiesing the appeal.
flied the -fititioner. As per the eempiaini, petitioner
;i$eSu¥’3-Ci.’ cheque for Rs.42,’?8()/- which came to be
§_1.i_eheneu1ed when it was presented for encashment.
T under chailenge indicates that the petitioner was
‘4 ‘convicted azid sentenced te undergo S3. for six moztzths
trial Court against petitioner which has been
the lower appellate Court is hereby modified
is directed only to pay fine of i:o _’_pa3rL ‘ V
campensation of Rs.65,}.70/– ;’?:.Q
substantive sentence passed p€f.iti0:;ér_Até ‘i:r1dé1’go * L’
S1. for 6 months is hemfiy _.Pe.fiiic11er §iS given
one mcsnth time to 51%: if
any payable tt’)_ Qgllich he shail
imdergo S.I.
sdl-{W
Judge
“2’X!V8