EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 15th my' C)?' APRi~: 200%?'
BEFORE V
THE H{)N'BLE MR~d:;§':°I__1:1de:ni
(respondent scrvad}
This criminal revision petinkm is flied lliltifii” Secticen
397(1) C.r.P.C. praying to 361: aside the judgment tiatéci 2349-
2605 passed by the JMFC3 H Ccxurt, Mysore. in
C.C’;.No.I98/ 52004 and order dated 3}.-1«’20{)6 passed by the
P.€}., FTC-4, Mysore: in C;r1.A.No.242j 2005.
-“*7”
This crimina} revision petition coming on for..gid:§fi:1é$si0n
this day, the Court made the following: ” ”
The pctifioner has Game 11.9 I ”
chaflengmg the order of c:3:1t*i§:£150fiV’a;id scntsi§r;:*fl§1;é1tc€1
209:3 gxtasscd in «::,Q.193/2’io:}_’4 by e.§iv§F:Q–iIf Cfauxt,
Mymm which has vZ;§£3€:_n “by Mysore in
Cr£.A.No. 242/2005 de;1;_;dA,3:’+’_1 gé0:3€§;’
2. _t}1c jespondcxgxt that it is a fmance
corpofatiésxg —._:§’afifiontr had raised a 30311 of
ii’s..25,0{}{§i it 24-1–2002 agreeing to repay the
‘ éafiicf.-_”c~n fliétéiments and to pay irlterest at 23″/o 13.21.;
‘fiat 31-3-2003 petitioner was due a sum of
“R_fi .16,i4. sand therefore issmcd the cheque Ex.P»2 which
{‘0 be dishenoured when ymsented far encashmcm.
V’ , ;I~§ié1j:cc he fiimi the private camplaini against pfitififilifil” for an
offencve ptmishablti under Sect:i
: ,1;-”
(,_.,,;:.»e*’/ , .
appcaxing before tria} court, the petitioner pieadt:(i”f§£:)«¥::’g1;i1ty’
and claimed to be mad. The defence of the
there is no legally recovcrabk: d.f:bt__Qr 1
the chézque E3x.P–‘2 and that
blank and it was fiilicrd up
not in due of thfi’. chgquc i€)_vtha:;.i’e;*s;pV=%;n§lEi.=.nt and has
repaid the amo-unvt fix:i: §:»”rg:$pondcnt in daily
instahnimt of ;3um of Rs,4,9(}0[~
as on ,2: the petitiener
to pmve that the said
chcqvxii=:*:JI*1-21:§ biank {:9 the respondent. The
signaturé” f:§11::(i* (2531 «ffxe cheque is not dispumd by the
.– V, , A “Vii-jfifiioner, Ffi3.§V’fiiéf,’Vthe writing found 01:1 thf: chtque and the
tht: same ink, Therefars, the trial (hurt has
” tha prssnmption in favour of respcmclent that
pctii;iCsi1cr issueci the said cheque towards legally recovarablc
, Fufihcr, the Ex.E~1 discicsm that as on 31~1{}–2002
petitioncr had gaid csniy Rs.13,4G()/–~ tr.» this rcsporzdcni: .3113
was still in dllfi to the respondent. Thcitforc, the trial (361111:
‘f
‘ -.m.c~’
.’.– *’
/’
(. //’
had xightiy coma it) ‘Hit: conclusion that even thojyzgh the
cheque has been issucd in biauk, the rcspQ3:id1:<§':1:*i"–_:vas
authoristtl to fill it up and present for
evidence placed on rccoré by t}1¢..;1c_titior1r.éfis*:i}0{'si;§fic§§;:fi» 1
"£0 rebut the presumption avaiiabélc f£avéur"of
No material has been piacC§i'@;:; '£9
no Icgally recoverabic debt or___g§7th§_:1'~ .i§1§dcf? the chrsque
– Ex.P.2. Since t1::V1c;-;«. t’ra:£sa<;jfif%:ii=«.'L3;nét2*:ag::c:n pciitionsr and
respondent has bc(::r1w–~;,;r:;v¢(£A& by adducing
evid%;nc¢,. :'has4.% _i:9._fi hctatn disputsd by thii pctititzmcr
hi1!I1SC'1f,_ fi1€' Jfihas rightly drawn prcsumpfion
infavqur {if and convicted and scntcnctd the
" .V ~f_:3r th{f'mé;f0m$ai€i Qifcncc which is in accordancc
V .§:?i't;i3.v. Iaw "mrV1"c1._§3'0es not rcquim any izxtcifcrcnct.
_.~1§§:3:cé this revision pcfitiovn fails and is accordingly
V disi::.iS$cd.
Sd/-‘g
Iudge
1&3?