High Court Karnataka High Court

Manju Batra vs M/S S B I Home Finance Ltd on 10 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Manju Batra vs M/S S B I Home Finance Ltd on 10 March, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY 01'-' MA1§CI§IV"2008.. A
BEFORE    0'   %
THE HONELE MR   0  0

 

CRIMINAL REVISIOLI PI.iJ:'I74I_[_I_'_I'j(.'1')l5?'1\I'_"_'["J1l.tf:.A_7'--_,.r'--:f"i_I--i('.D'?.'C'A' -.o_i'». ._otioe,

' petitioner accused has 'failed   such a

complaint came to be   petitioner under

Section 138 of  "~--?I_'he'~complai11ant examined

n.ana.n.n-.n.n..n u..uu.

PJAL1 -11 its heh If  ~i_r1ii'i.s 'evidence has state... the
petitioner: 4'   and towards the
discharge:::oi'«:!§i1e'  were issued and they
 got to P.3. Signature on the
 'I'he bankers endorsements 

a _ .v . HAHMR L_J_u

4 B3 I-3.6. :'~'i"'ki'it'i"'Icu Iit ft')? 11 inn

0 r  notice is marked as Ex.P.8. Postal receipts and

inarked at Ex.P.9 and P. 10. P. 12 is the copy of

 notice.

3. The liability is not in dispute. The oo13;plainant is

a banking company. The only ground urged by the



petitioner accused is that the sentence  by the
trial Court as well as the first appellate  is and

excessive and as such a lenient View is  

itnposing the s..nte_,ce. It is "also p_   the  

petitioner accused
taken loan amount for   si'r1"n'ued
to lease out the  repay the
amount in questiohAVa;itt.Vas__he   rentals as
expeete-:1_   V  the loan

advanced V p  §e*mI'u?:n3«'. p

 4.._TaIrihg'-i'Ite_. t...e su..m_,_s,_o1,:_1_s made by the

petitiorier accused,  feel that the se11ix3m'3fi.im'posed by

 A  '  ' is harsh and excessive and the same

V   ihterfemnce in the present revision' petition. The

' w.::..en._.r 1.. held guilty of an ofience punishable

-uh

 to T uiider Section 133 of me N.I.Aa and .9. 11».-.-._ -r the

"  sentence imposed by the Courts heiow,  "petitioner is

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in default to
 \/~l'.L'CLL_



suffer simple imprisonment for six months. ;"i'Ot1t of the
fine amount a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-.shg}l~--t)e':';s;§iti'to the
respondent complainant. The fine   

demsited within a period of ‘M t A’
amount already depositctj girfergiit
and the same is by the

3; Qbgglygtjgns, the

.1375 ‘1-mt: j