-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1231 DAY OF AUGUST, 2010';-.___
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE SUB}-IASI-I.--§:"A[)i:~ '
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIGN'1~zo."--.787j2a1e'
BETWEEN:
Sri. P.T.Nagaraj
S/0 Bhovi Thimmappa _
Primary School Teacher '
Resident of I-Iosajogihatty I I
Village, GowdagerePoSt
Nayakanahatty Hobli _ _ '
Cha11akereTa1u{k *
Chitradurga " ....PET1TIONER
.... Adv.)
Sri.J.H.GadIIiI1gaIpDa_ I'
S/0 Hampanna _ '
ReSId,e§.f1t of Rampu-raVVi1Iage
IVIo1kalrnurI1 Taluk " """ "
'~._ Chi trad u__rga Dist. _ ...RESPONDENT
Sri. H.K.Keneheg0wda, Adv.)
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
CSEC’I’£ON 397(1) CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY
4 BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL.
* _DIS’i’;..AE\lD S.J. CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.70/2007 I)T.9/11/2009
–AN1:> THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.334/2004 I)’I’.19/11/2007, BY
C.J. (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MOLAKALMURU.
~ I I. THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
O R I) E R
Learned Counsel for respondent has no objection to
condone the delay. A A
Misc.Crl.1953/2010 is allowed. Delay condolned..:l “‘
Heard both the counsel. H H
Petitioner is accused in
JMFC, Molkalmuru. Responden_t”‘N.,o.l filed a_pritrate’~complainti’
under Section 200 of Cr:P.C. for__i:t’_h.e_of_fpence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Act, He has alleged
that, the petitionerhad 1a:*<;§.55,ooo/– for the
amount due said cheque was
dishonoured issued legal notice and
filed a A'
2. Atrial Clo-:_1rt~.vor1..—-the basis of the evidence, convicted
vwthe Withl”si}:…m’onths simple imprisonment and fine of
compensation of Rs.55,000/–. As against
was filed before the Sessions dudge,
‘Chitradurga,.V in Criminal Appeal No.70/2007. The learned
V’ ‘Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 9.11.2009 has confirmed
–.fft.he– judgment of the trial Court. As against which, this revision is
A alga.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that, the
complainant has received the entire amount of compensation
:%\c-‘i
~r:”
-3-
awarded by the triai Court and further submits that, the matter
is settled amicably.
Considering that the compensation has been
tht, sentence awarded by the trial Court could .” pg
4. Considering the material and _evider1c’eg ‘on’–Ir’eeord, f it C’
appears that, there was monitory ttradnsactiont. . between”‘itheo
parties. Learned counsel for thvesipetitionery that, the
amount does not beco.rr1e..g_1egaIiyreeoiierabie The trial
Court and Appeilate Court haye the same.
5. No raised, both the Courts
have coneurrentEy*’V.;_: petitioner. In View of
compensation tIi«e_’:inatte:\ having been amicabw Fettled,
I find that, be allowed by compounding the
sentenzcev. _
thismpetiton is allowed. The judgment dated
by the Add}. Dist. and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga,.eonfinning the judgment dated 19.11.2007 passed
” the J Molakalrnuru, are hereby set aside.
361/ i
judge
s::Ap/_