High Court Karnataka High Court

D T Raju vs B Abdul Rahiman S/O Fakirabba on 16 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
D T Raju vs B Abdul Rahiman S/O Fakirabba on 16 July, 2009
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE Hxcm COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  _

DATED THIS THE Lem DAY OF Jlsmrigfacjgf 4. _ _: "  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.J{ 1.

CRIMINAL REVISION 15E:*?r1*sQN m V933/2905
B Em  A _ % L .. 7'
Dfi'. Raju V
Aged about41y_aa_*js _  _  ~ 
Donugudige        

Aldur Post,        .
 »      PETITIONER/S

(By sgi." EV;   V?
AND  _ V V _V _  .,

B. Abdul iféiaimaxx A
S10' ,i3'a;'idI'abbaV" A. _

 -  %AAga¢<at;s:::x-:.%%55  -------- ~ "
 »E3a;1al(ai and Post
 h;41;cE£gc"re_  RESPONDENT/S

Adv. for M] s. Mahesh 65 Cc», Adv.)

i-*~lI’§-:5

T111; Cximinal Revision Pctzitkm is filed 11/3 39? my 491

A ” C.1rV.LI5’L*{‘3 praying to set aside the judgment and seatence dt. 6–}–

‘{}_1’*g;asseri by the JMFC, héudigcrc, in CC.No.M62/96 and the

.. jmcigmcnt and, sentence dt.29-4-05 passed by the 19.0., F’i'(3–II,
‘ .._Chi1magaim’, in C’.r1.A.No.8[01.

This Criminal Revision Pefitien coming on for irmaring,
this day, the Court, maria the foflowing:

3 Cr1.RP 93317005

the Txia} Court with the compiaint unécr to
take action against the accused for the ofi’encé__:’un(1éxf

138 of the Act.

3. The Trial Court
the process, the accused bgfofi Court and
after recording the as
PWK1 and in hisVevide11g¢,:[‘ Exs.P.1
to R7. The of mcordécl under
Section was examined as
DWJ. Exs.D.I to 13.7. The
Trial {.”.’;’vH.’8[ 2001 and the Sam’ appeai came to be dismissed on

‘ fiefiis vide judgment and erder dateci 294.2095. Aggzicved by

” wths COI);C1iI’I’€Ikt findings of conviction, the petitioner has

appmachcd this Court in revision. f><':.

4. Cxi.RP 2733×2005

4. I have heard the learned. counsel for and

also the respondent. The points that arise for

are:

i. Whether the _iudgV::11en!;§’ pf
the gaefitsioner fo1V*»;§fl”e1A1.e-ea 1 138 0’f»
the Act aI1d.–t:he ‘fhereezi ‘aaafliixmeci in the
appeal is _

Wha2i;’0–zfieI?A

5. I112′ is (if learned counsel for the
petittiofier has failed to establish the
existenee pf’ c;eb:..;5:%lei1ia1§i1iiy<es:¢ an extent of Rs.2,I(),2S0/– and

that 33.3.6: exade the payment of Rs.5,43,250/-

< 'issuance cheque and thezefore, he submits that

that was payable to the complainant has

that the complainant has misused the cheque

"V..,Which'We':s given earlier and presented the same inspite of the

f_""ij_hat there was no éebt or liability on the part of the

aecused. It is his further contention that he has mazlmam' ed

a these accounts regalding the amount and prices of the eofiee

and these accounts reveai that he has paid Rs.5,43,250/~ anti

that therefore, the amount due at the most is RS: 70,()$)/' – and

3 CILRP 93352095

and the liability to an extent of Rs.2,1(_},250/- far which the

accused had issued the cheque to the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner fl

followingdecisimzs: H ‘ ‘ A
2008 AIR sew 738 (K;isiu;a::’_A_’ “V; .

Dattatraya G. Hague) JV _ % ” ., . ‘ %
ILR 2008 KAR 4629 ve.’

wherein this Court: _ has held that

Secticn 139 of _ti.2e_ in favour of the

hoideif” cf’ e has ‘eeen issued in
debfi and the existence of legally

recovex~abVie”~£AiAebt tic,.Vi:1e..”~*’7proved by the complainant and the

_;1A;§u:7;ie11’A be discharged by him to raise

‘ Section 139 of the Act. So also, it is held

by. me that the pzesumption raised can be rebutted

aud the Bexden couid he éischarged on the basis of the

V. matefiei already brought on zeeord and that there is no

igeeessity far the accused to enter the witness box. The ieamed

V’ “counsel invimd my attention 1:0 Para 34 of the decision wherein.

it has been held as under: 94′

1?. CARP 933/2605

the sentence of impzjsonment dixccting the ..pay

the fine amount to an extemt of Rs.2,10,250/._§.e.i, tfie %¢hég1 1e__

amount + Rs.1,00{)/- as fine and Zflié defatilt “f~fc1:iCe,

answer Point N01 partly in A.

and proceed to pass the

The petiti§912V__is the conviction of
the pctitiogggaf-..:vf§)r:’::’ft§c 138 of the N.I.Act.
The segtgfice months awarded by the
‘Trial 1 fine amount is enhanced to
Rs.2,11;25{i/-. Gui awarded, Rs.i2,10,250/~– shall be

paid 110 _the 11.6., the respondent herein and the

.’ V. étazgunt ofmRs.1,000/- shall be credited to the State.

.’_I’i1t_- ‘V granted four months time to make the

pa§n*.3;¢n1;- E111: éiaiéfault of the payment of the amount Within four

‘-m0nthé,. shall undergo simple impximnment fer six months.

Sd/-

JUDGE

J1,