Mr S Ganesh vs Venkatagiri Bekal on 4 December, 2008

l'Ifl..'l'l'i \..Uulu ur nnnnnlnnn ruvn \..v§.aIu ur I\.HnI'u-unnn nnan \u\l'JI'lI vr Ivsnnnannn ruvn uuunl Ur nnnwnsflnn fllurl LUUK! U!' KAKNAIAISA i'1|GH C

1

as 1113 men Mme? mmzawm AT' Bhflfiifiigtflf j f} 
DATED Tms ma 4m my a? mmcmxman 2&8  _   

BEFORE

Tm Hozmw mmmcm 1mHA1qjsaan'mfifia'    * FV  

cm-m¢AL REVEI035 P&«:11*:1*£f.«
cenvzmzem m.4.?.:::? mag ms <:.r:.r¢::.5e3_'_.w..o5  H.

cows? :35' V JMFC, £~{.%a't3.%E£RE am: THE J:;.*3:;M'zfm' Ar;-it:

CaRi3ER m*.25.12.£a7 MADE IN t:a,..,§_ :éa._.'iSé5;Q'_"~3', ":2»Y*_':*I»:.m'* V

5. J; D. K, §¥J7iN{§.F6.I:C*RE}. ;v ' '_
cmmmx. PE'I"I'1"E<.Z}R 933.2251 Q§'.2ihQ$
B P _ _

km VENKATAGIR1'~~..BEKi3.L "  jé 
em BHASKARA    *
AGEE 36 YEARS H V  " 
MA ammmzr: :;..* 
vIn2AE;>::J§r;:s-- NAGAR  ' '' '~
}'£PsNiZ;A£§{}RE'E~Q     nmrrxelaw.

£3}: ;'é;:¥£; ': --   Al3'£?Q{fATE . , ;

am. sT"~:mrs:,:=;:+: '
 4*: ':'E2=.B.A..'-3__ V
" ism» smvmsammaa
 9.,.~cs;>.--.;:r:=V. 1518, 213': mass
,3"::.«s:c"22'._=a";z~I, J..}?.N§;GAR II smear:
 z«r:-.n=3:.*s1=;1e*.,~+H?s.
..   nwmmar

€ByHSii: 5 VISWAJETH SHETTY; HDV@CETE.;}

  THIS {':RL.F ES 311.32 u';'s.::82 flR.P.C
PRAYIM3 TC} SET asma Em 139.353 D'I*.36.l2.2E3:2>'?

V' "hr: c:=:.1z«mzz~.,L mvzsxom PETITICEN 2~I€3.2¢34/21233'?

PRSSEB BY THE I hDDL.SESSEGNE JUDGE,
HEHGALGRE.



nu-I -uIu.rI.:I\I Iva I\l'lI'\I'Il"IIl'Il\l'I III\J'II \.'I.JIulI\l 'IJI l\l"lI\IIl'\lrl!\.Fl I"l!,\3r1 I...

 

3

'I'EiES§: cammzan REVIEIGN 9EI*I'1?.j:'::§§.%2j~~«_ "~_a

cgmman ymzrxorz camm an mm Anxxsgszqxg.

1313.3, TI-E CEKIRT I*§35§HE THE EQLLQWING:  

or 3 z: I:  

cr.R.r>.nra.141;os is %.%J§1ed%%it:y A  

acmzseacl, wher-c.a&,, T_ by the

complainant.
2. Thtzf   ctmzlplaint is
lodged    alleging afieme

undaig  Instnnnents Act.

HIGH QKJURI Ur I'\I\Kl".F\II'\l\l'\ !"'Il\7K'!  \.J'l' i\l'|l\I'.l"'|Il"\I\l"'| III\?II \--'IJI...I'I\I 'hf! I\l'lI\I'l'lIl'lI\I'I II

3. The caae_ of " '  in brief is max,
the  _    had gm tauasm' ass.
tra.I:1sa.c'c3En$ix;..  i:he amuwd had entmated

wr1'.1a&"'ivark   plant, Baikampady

 _ 1 rthar had cnitruatezd civii wcsrk to

4. On cemplefion at' Work and

 aaf the acceuuts pertair1z"ng In the said
 accused iasucd a cheque daIm3;:1fl.11.05

drawrz 611 Bank «of India for %.4,2G,Q£fi,'-, as said

\{/'\



H'-H - Afiguflwlmfi Iv! amfimlwmlfilnffi IFTIKAVWW %%?WK5 W? Kflfigvflfifikfifl Hlfiafl        

4

amount was due by the accused no the coxmlaiizgnt.

endoracmcnt imuficient funds',   

all statutory fiormsaiitiw such  

the complaint 3 lodged 

undcr section 138 of NJ. Aci; 

In suppon: oi; '%  oomplaixmnt
mm"' d   marked 10
exhibim.  as nw-1 in
 Court after hearing.
   sentenced him no pay fine
of  amuse. said judgment

 by ma accused in
  before the Sessiom Court, Dakahina
 ik  Criminal Appeal came to be
V I   thn comlaxinant has pmmrmd
WCH2r.R.P.Na.204fO7 praying for enhanoeamcnt of

awn-ance bebre the Sessions Court. Said criminal

\\,i*\,



ucmmuvnu V-rtHur'I|9'M'I.m

WW! awmmltrnnrmawm ueawmu yywna we" nmnmmmmhm mmvn wewwma we mne=.rmmmwm 2-imam wwum we ¥£AKNR"F"M§S£& mam «mum Qfi KMRNATAKA HWH

5

revision petition also came to be dismissed. Hence,

the accused as well as the complainant 

these petitions.

4. The defence of the   
that he had 'saw.-.d three :4   me they   t" %

tc-warm security for    am
of the cheque is   Said
defence '3  below, on

  

   the: accused had

  by the complainant. There is
  to show that accused had paid the

  due by him. Under such

   the Courts below have rightly hem

4'    had issued the cheque in quesizion mt
.   ofthe amount due by him. In View ofthe
 defence mean by the accused, it h clear that he does

notdieputetheiesuanoeofthechequeandhh

\/~



=-uwww wau-«ammo-u.m we-u aw:-nnv.uur\asr'\1JI\&-Q em;

"*5" 'A",'.*"-f""" VV "HW"~"'l¥Hl\i'i- "SR7?! MWUKI U!" RAMNHAEAKH H16?! €..;L.?Ufi¥ CM" KP:KNfi%ii3\K.R W§€:W'E COURT 0?' K.QRNA'W5a¥€& HEGH

6

signature found on the chequu. Thus the statutory

preaumpticm arises in femur of the 
presumption in not rebutted. 1: is also   k 
that the statutory formalities 
complainant before lodging     *'

on re-appmomiaxing the     "Court
does not find any  13%)  thié judment
and order of  below.

 as, the accused is

stated to  so:-abou: five months.

as  at the trial Court as

VL   is sentenced to pay fine of
 3&$2e,9'39f<&&%% and in default, he was directed to

a    for 5. period at' six months.
   sentenua k enhanoedto certain extent, the
V» cantinmsto be in custody for some more
 Even otherwim, the Courmbeloware juatified





cum: urn mfl"mtn'\l"fl Ea

mtwwx-vs wgmfwmu was ammmmmeammm HRWW MWMKI Ur nnxmamzmnm fllkarfl MWUKE U? Kflfifififififlfi §"'M€§§'§ Cwufi? QF WARN&?&KA NW3"

7

in senttmcing the accused to pay fine cf Rs.4,20,.0O0/- "'----._

the axnount found in the cheque. The Cmzrtn ~ 
have emmimx me discxeuon jumaouaxy   L
fiwts as circunaatanwa of the   6;"
San", this Court decline'      '

scntenec aha.

130.141/2008

&!.aa§A%j+& i and
C1-.P.No.2261 by stands

*m/#1.q;k.«12L,%Oa:;;*i3. 1. cs