.. I ..
N THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT QANGALORE
DATED Tl-4i$ THE 22"" EA'! OF AUGUST 2808
BEFORE T T
m& HONBLE MR.JUSTiCE SUBHASH B_..AE!.'j' r u
BETWEEN:
R. A. Phaneendra.
Sic. Sri. Amanda Rae, .
Proprietor, Miss. Vipra Graphics,
i'~i.%7, 4"' Crass, . _
Mahaiakshmi Layout, _
BANGALORE-560 086. v __ _ , .. PETiTiO¥\.iER
(By Sfi. M. Rajgopai. Adv.) M
AND: V
D. Kannagrpa, _ _
Sic. Latte IZ3orai1;=mjrirr2 ,
Residingat'-No.245,-~ i ' -~
EV 8tage,"Ei¥ Biock,._ ° i"
8"" Main, Baa'-._aveshwaranaga'i.';
BANG-A,L{)FEEi5§0{).79. .. RE$P0!\iDE!'~1T
V. ., (fiyirréri. FEames?i"7Raa"& Associates' Advs.)
r.T"i~2if$'Citi:rz'ii2gi Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 3:36 491
"Cr;-F?.S."'vprayir2;r'vio set aside the iudgmeni; and order E.)t.2?.'i0.2Q05
passed in Cr.'iC..i\§o.3147?/£30 en the file of the Xi'X ACMM, Bangaiore
(3I13}=.anc!__'the, '~i){C¥e¥' passed by the P.C)., Fast Track: (Sessions) Jirdge-V,
Barigaierzr-_ City, in Cri. A. No.35? BIOS, Dt.08.02.2007.
:.i'i'1&.d6 the foiiowing:
AL I Trxis Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day. the Court
9 R D E R
This Court by Qrder dated 13.-4.206? had isaued notice and
granted interim order subject to deposit of Rs.50,0{10f- in the ma! court
r'7.g'QE'b{
withtn two weeks from said date. On 8.S.20=0?. learned Counsel for the
petitioner sought for extension of time to deposit the amount. The time
was extended by two weeks. ('in 3.7.2007. none repteeented the
petitioner ene inepite of granting suflictent time. the amourdwes not
deposited. in View of the same. this Court recaited ~_'ti1--e"'L-«ioi'<ter of
suspension of sentence. On 22.1.2098, none --~.«tt';t.:.'t§:e
petitioner. Learned Counset fot the reopo_ndent"eeeeij:t'V'fer'_'tiVme: es-v,Ȣ'*~.,
matter was adjourned and the records n£ere:.'eieo coiled Tite 'i'ecorde"'~. *
are received.
2. Resooneent bed-='fil_ed e«'o'ornp!eint_tor oneffence etsniehebte
under Section 138 of the Neigiotiebiet
chequeividatod 2.§"§;t?3..'t9§39 §o'r~;O<t».fl00!- towards the iiability. The eeid
cheque w«a'e.4_'returned with an endorsement es "account
closed'; in thie"re;.;ei'd. the respondent had iesued a tenant notice dated
ifl’ee(e\Jer. petitioner did not make any payment. in View of
A “‘tl§e!’eenive4.:’t’txe teegeondent fiied the complaint.
..4′;’~’}iitie”.only defence taken by the netitioner — accused before the
it ts’ie;!_.jcou}’t ‘wee that. the notice is defective and the complainant has not
‘ ””:.ek’en’ any action either to amend or delete the piee and had alteged that,
-~-tne oemptaint is not rneintaineoie. in thie regard. the complainant had
led the evidence by examining himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-
2 and had also produced Exej-‘-‘1 to P8. Petitioner herein get himeetf
exemtned es DW-t and atse marked Exs.Dt and £32.
5. The trial court considering the evidence feeerij per
Exs.P3 and P4. the accused had given an undenekteg:”eed’
of the accused is found en these dectirhehk. it it
cheque betenge to the accused and it is ei’g_hed_ fuiti–:te’r~.tetstid
that. there is a tiebility to pay the eeteunt uneier. deseite
the legai eetice, the emeuhthes neteeieeiieeid. ‘ iiheegshfithe petitioner
had ted the evidence. but he “how he is net tiabie to
pay. Nerebuttebte_evtdenee”ie’iett.
5. FrehtHE_§£ew._i5’3″ ismeteer that. the petitioner herein heel
giver: and in View of the undertaking
and in vteweef the Section 138 of N.t.Act hearing been
er~:>\.!eci_by the4″cet’epieiteaii:. the trial court as weii as the tower appellate
«..eeu:vt_:hee_e,:ceneurieht3e——h”e!d that the offence is proved. Petitienei has
L_het.’¢erhpitect the eenditicri ef the interim order of this Court. in view
ef’thie?.’! fifiefite rtiertt in the Revision.
Aeeerdingiy, the Revision faiis and same is dismieeed.
KNM!-
sal-
Judge