IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 247" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 5 = CRIMINAL REVISION pE'rITIoN_iI_\Io._1_Ie7'o'F Between: B.R.Venkatesh Aged 48 years. S/o Sri.K.Rama Murthy, _ _ . R/at No.I).264, East I4?-I-._LiI_ie,V_V ITI Colony, Dooravani AI'-€agAaI'I_,_ } Bengaluru -- 560 016. " _ Petitioner (By Sri . Chandr A:=dVoe.ate'} » And: J.Venu _ ' Aged 57"yea_rs', _ V _ S/o Jogigowdia. _ ' R/at NO.4-18, E.ast»_5"} L1.i~'1€, ITI Colony, Dloora'vani' Nagar, .-v,Beng_aiur_u ----x 560"'iO.1__6y.» Respondent dW[By:VVSri:i\/i.T.'l\la'n_naiah & Uday K.Reddy, Advocates} **$** This_"C-riminal Revision Petition is filed under S.ection~.3E?7 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying set aside the judgment and conviction order pjassetr, by the XXXVI Additional City Civil and ' "Se'ss'i--o~ns Judge, Bangalore passed in Crl.A. "2_"'No.'}I5070/2004 dated 02.02.2007 at Annexure--l, A 'as.--well as the judgment and conviction passed by "the 14"! Addl. CMM, Bangalore City in Cr1.Case $2", No.26552/02 on 7.10.2004 at Annexure-2 and remand the case to Trial Court to dispose of the C.C.No.26552/02 by providing opportunity to the petitioner to adduce additional evidence. This Revision Petition coming on vxfor Admission this day, the Court made the followien-giz-_V_ ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is
Section 397 of Code of Crimin2LlWPro«c_e’dure.AlV:}§§’.X-XVIAdtieiytlional
City Civil and Sessi0n’s_.Judg’e;l.I”3aVng_a1or0e”passed in
Crl.A. No. 15070/2004;’ d_s’we.1:’1 ;as_:t’hfe..Ljudginent and
convictivo’n”i’oir.djer ‘i0;”2’0′{i;i passed by the XIV
Additional 0’ ‘ ‘*..’v_:V’i’i\il:eVtropolitan Magistrate.
BangaloreuC–i_tyvV .c;o’;Nd’.26552/02.
2. \{V’i’th. the’ c_oV1i’se1′:.t of learned counsel for the
re’v«i,si’0n'”petitioner as Well as learned counsel for
the this matter was heard on merits,
since’««._lea’r’ne–i:i counsel for the petitioner confines
argunients only in so far as the legality of the
_s’e~.n’t~en=ce is concerned. The Trial Court records
I
2/
-3-
and Appellate Court records were called for and I
have perused the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the cheque amount is ?l,25,000/–, wherjeaes,
the Trial Court has passed sentence to
?1,60,000/- and in default to unde_r§’o._
imprisonment for one year. glrle ‘k’u..:t.her–._su_’:nii’:s
that the fine amount may be reduc”e.d tott;e'”chequ”e it
amount.
He further pletitione’r/
accusedv”wa.sfl”‘anll;e;mp”l–oyee lin~V–l”l’I factory and later
on due to l:lVl’:V:.Vll,¢’El»]_£l”1′-,_T;-eiirldh also due to manpower
reduction the’._”‘f,actory, his service was
.–vV.diSCQ’r’:tivnt:ed fr”o’m.._eI_TI. Now, he is running an auto
l”.for;”l*1is –.1_i’v<e'li:Vh'o_Qd. He is economically weak. The
accusedlanp'dl'y:=complainant were friends and when
this ti'arilsaa.cltion took place, they were employees in
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that suitable order may be passed.
5. While imposing sentence the K
have to take note of the fo1lowin–gs:–._
1. The cheque amount.
2. Whether proper pa-‘.ym_Vent”‘ot”‘ mon;eyVj.t’oyVVVt3heb
complainant to the avc’-cu’sed. 2 A_ I
3. Whether there:”\yas njcjhua”n.ce of’g’i’v’ing the
cheques in blatiih-as–tVhe accused.
4. Whether__ any… to the
compIai’1fi_~.aj’1t the’: ti’1n’ef.oVf.pendency of the
case! f.y “d a % .%.d .
5. Age, and nature of
:.transAa*t?tioI’L.V
6. In th1’s”~«..case,’._botlytttaccused and complainant
W’V\fv€I’C._’\§iTO1’_kiT}g ‘th..e«’same factory and they were
:va.c”c11sed lost his job due to downsizing
of’th«e*»estab’1:shment. The age of the accused is 48
years.” “At present. he is running an auto for his
V/’
]u1*v,e’EIti1ood’.
7. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
is silent about the nature of imprisonment. _.-The
offence under Section 138 of the Act is
heinous crime. Therefore, tak.i’n=g V’
consideration all aspects of th_e»..».c_ase,_” inhny it
the fine amount of ?1,6O,OOO’;/«-1’_’_imVpos.e’dflog}
Trial Court is reduceti”lV__to_V
realisation, ?1,25,0QO/- the
complainant and Paid to the
State. In defauit the
petitioner/acc.:1is’§tl’__._ ::&.vv”iin’d’ergo simple
imp ri s o n m nt ii; V l
this criminal revision
petition
wit
jigfiga