IN THE HIGH cwm OF KARNATMQ, AT BANCWQRE mmn THIS Tim am my 05* % BETWEEI§' : M} S. Bharath SCIST &__C}5C _ ~ Cmdit: Co-opmmzizsm Sociéty[Lt'c1_._,f';--. } _ Previsursly En the mm of M,!.,a.;..I.J}H.--*;~.. '; ._ SC] 3'!' & CBC Cradit Ca'-09'. 7 ' Ltd., News. _ em mock, 1 % By im Rep. byirm GPA.LHqld:1' _ ~ 81:11:. W1 o.1;:~, M1;m;ge3Ii, 42 years, N¢.>.é35, 1015+-'E' " 6th bb¢k, , '- Oifl... ..... . . APPELIANT I _ S. Badawadagi, Adv.) an Réfioerti wrmam, . .. Ego, lam-Vsxi Peter Devdaa, _ '- gwsgm, W01-ldng as Pbst Masha:-, V _» V' Péfst Ofiae, ._;§'3it;}r Railway Statian, _Ba::ga1ore . . RESPONDENT
(By M/5.1′. Nehru Asaa@’taes – Absent)
Thfi CrimimtlAppea1fifik3d u1’x1e.1rSeefi1on378 of
C}r.PC pcrayim to the legality, propriety and
W
2
eon-minus in paasizg ‘at’ the impugmd Juclmmgt dt.15.
12.2006 in CC’. N¢.17005l 2004 an the filta ::f the X){II’ACkfisII,
fialore and mat asitia the hnpui j1.1dit.«b£
csfiexm 13131131138 oftha HI Act. _ ” ” _j
TEE Cnmma1′ ‘ Appeal conung’ V
the mutt dnlisrered the following: h’ .
‘% appeal ‘a by the cram’ of
acquittal of in CC
30.17005/2004 by tug ASC-J, Bambre
city. % % &&&&
C0-opezcafive Socziety,
and the of the Society, had avaihd
a ti? – ‘£,:m..’24.01.1999 pt-miaixzg ta rewy the
‘v. , a:’ 334 wxthlyv ixmtalwta est’ Rs.2,100/- along with’
but, failed m repay the same. On
Vv has iasufi & chaqua beat-m Ho.006052
for Rs.65,000]— towards disc;l% of the
On prmmmtion of tho mic! chequa, the 3%
T in be I’e”!J.11’n&d w1th’ an B@DI ‘E ‘fuws i2’mufi:i1=:11t’.
U The oemplainant filed complaint aflaer hsuancc of legal nctiae.
The Trial Court, afher mquiry,_ha:uim afiw that the ascusad
\
3
hasavai3mdkoanfi’omSmteBanke:fIndiaa:1c1t:otfi*9mthe
Society and the camphmant has tahmn nae
eollabwal aecunlty and has mimwfi the
sngnediem of sectim 138 and ,¢,pt9f.__
pznzwed, dismissed tlw
3. It appears, in «with ef tm
loan amount, cmques } obta:nnd’ by ‘ck
ee1II?39’m’nt’ 1;’? U» 7 to tha
respondent 1:: males any payment.
we med ‘ia”.9″‘%}cemp1ai:1ar1t towards the
lean if there 73 any paymmxt mde
by éaxfiunéd. thcre would be: some cntry in
not coma out as to what aactly in the
axmfiéxt Jclmfi the respondent. In the cixwzzumsnam, to
complaizmnt am’! the mspandzmt — accused tn
‘ better eszidzmce and tiefend the case, the impuged
T] A’ is liable tn be set mag.
XV
4
accordingly; the appeal is allowed. The impzgnéajerdew
is east asidue. ‘rm mm is mama to the 1’t?*.:eIi”fgr
disposal of the mm ‘m aooordi with
Hm-zy to Lead adamonax eviamee Q, AH. an
. The parties
Trial Court on 6.10.2010.