-5
3N THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.
DATED was THE 9*" DAY 0:: JUNE 2898
BEFORE ( _ k % R
THE HONBLE MRVJUSTECE sue:-may siéébi % T L
cRw.mA:. Revision: pr.--:T1Ta0:v~m.22s;2e':3k:r%% "L
BEYWEEN:
H. E(aEEes§'2appa
S20. Huchappa,
Ageai aizsout 4?' years,
$36.3, 2"" Floer, 13' Mam Roé:d';x_
Nehrunagar,
3A¥'~£GALGRE-588020.
(83; M55. Mahesh §%'{§%#aLhesh;:'__Ad§*$§;§ "
ANE3:
M1s.F'inex Savrvices, " ''
Ground Fioor, ' 4
MysugarBuiidEng.;_ ' ,
J.C.F_B.Q.E_B
Though this matter was sailed twéce, none appearecéfar the
petitioner.
2. This Revision is directed again$tA»the juc&:gzn§§1f--';:f £:r:~;?3L_\:.f§ctéé';n2 ' x
arid ardar af sentence in Ci.(2'i's£c>.5318f2:l313¢1 ::':i_AaT':~23<:¥
confirmed in Criminai Appeai No.4':§=€$$'2$O6 am 9?? r<£§%.;éi;;ntar me. *
3. Respondent fiied.--~ g cem-;3§.¥:¥ifi:t- Ehé§faIi«'a, aileaivsisa that the
petitécrser had borrowed ‘fesncndent 3&3 9%’!
22.12.2903, he had_§s5_ued gfiéqfié when the cheque
was presentegi.-V re$:;;;o_fi:11ci:w§nt.’_«–;-éf :§b§$’i§§éinant, the same was
feturned Vgvithv’ funds’. Theieafier, the
respcndé-{at _:Eiég1a”§’«v..:§:iati;a,.” Qespite service of notice. the
petitioner fieitfier irzotice nor paid the amount. The
re$p:3:*=;:ie”st:.fi!eci.5 a»¢¢m§3%a§f’:t énd examined himseif as PW-1 and aiso
.Erociijizéédi”EE§:s;PfE_to P1′ wetitioner got himself exammed as 8W.,.
aha ‘Vaf§?s§:”;;»:§>t!;§:§:e=;§i.~ EXSD1 to 011 .
biéeque belongs ta the petitioner and tése signature on the
‘ ‘ $a::’2wa.__Es “not disputed. §-however, the petitioner claimed thaé the
résbéniient has taken the signature of ihe petitiener an a blank gaper,
VT he has not signed any farm for 203:1. He aéso stated that, he had
” V borrowed oniy Rs.50,0@0.f- and he has paéd it.
5, The triat mutt an appreciation of the evidence has found that
the petittener is a doubie graduate and has net explained as t€>–__!_’zaw he
signs bfiank forms and biank cheque. The petitioner has a;§:mttte§§’vtt:at
he has signed E:-(F13, the lean fem: and has admittédvtttéttI”‘tsta:”‘t.§*s.,A
signed the cheque, but M3 net pteduceci anything’ té’véf;’t§§6j\;s* he ‘?}a§ » _
either paid the amount Or has made arty:’tv;o:t2,’;j:5ia%tat i:f_i¢:-3%” afVVc:}tesg’E::=;{er
has ptoéuced any matetiat to st1i$v2’~.t§jat ttte ‘éhequév:’¥;ti:§:;…:gta.§3ne§ii
the comptainant even after the di5ct_1 _a}g§_ tat, toanf’ «. 1′ I
8. The trtat court 9:: at§p_tecta«tt’§5n’ e§.’ttts§’_»s»?éa:*;.ence has cottvtcted
the acctsseé, T11}? -Eqaweggr a»;’:%p”g=.:£ia€t4é’~.’t%’r.;–~::a_t:rt *c:;r£ re-appreciation has.
confitr:1edt¥1¢;’$;a’f%_’«§f ” Q
§f%’tttet.1;§’::ztiti<$::tfi;»:'2'* to té_ke"c1V:etence that he has di$£3?'§at'§&d
the iéabéiiity, tag sit-::::»i:t:'i,"~ttavéV_fp{t§ét;._§céd the nacetsary materiai. But no
materéai is u'ptt9{iu.ceV:d._'tét.s'h§;% that he has discharged the ioan, no
ma:;:s§az ;fs grod¥.i¢ed…_*_.’9_3how that the cheque is test. Qnae the
§;{:mpiain»:a’t;t that the cheque is tamed by the petttitmet and the
dtshonaured and moves that the tiabiiity is not
V -V é§sét§’a;g§§§; tétén tstesumption arises Lsndet Section 139 of tt.E.Act araé
thg gséttttoner faéis to pmve his case by rebutabfe ezsidencei than
gcstésuttmtion astses under $ect§en 138 of N.l.A<:t eraLsre$ :9 the benefit
-~t;t}the comptainazztx in this case, there is no matertai ts shew that the
V petittonat has diacharged the tiabétity rm there is anything to shew that
‘
the petitioner hats paid the amount. Merely because he aléeges that he
has signed the blank forms. it is not a ground to new that them’
liability. ‘ %
Accerdirzaiy. the Revision ?etit§sn faiis and§$4disrr§ié$:éc1:;’;V.
KN¥v§!- H