'av
3. T116 Iearrmd trial jzidge, afiar apprr€Ci_ati_::1g_T'~Vih€
€ViC3€f1C€ an 1'€C()fi'{§. placed by bath $161235 --.f:'{;oié
ef the evidence of D.W.E §{I'§S:}I1.§:"1_§v'f3.l}T'f}i§§;".:::¥§71€{}'; is {fie
accussci. if} particuiar, held '-.i;h3j£T..ih€,_a<::é'uSe§;§---__%;:;:;d
admiiied the 1021:: tfa:1Sa£i'i_iC.ij1 aswéiiVas ti:§: '
pay the E0311 ameun: and tfge cheque
aiso. Therefors, (3V¢i'>'}AC"1";iCif:'€Zi and
séntenceci {Cs pay a «, The lower
appellate trial czmri by
dismissirig thé: '-by {Iii-"accused.
«i. he fbr the respondent drew the
a:’t:er1ti0i’:__Q*{ this ihe admission made by D.W.1
i.<§:,_§ {he péiiii-Qgiér, fainiseif befere the trial Court and in
has admitted that he hafi iaken bar:
— from the cemplainani and issued thre€
:i3;s;qu63′:i%aqTV.that cerzneetian arid apart {rem that, the
peiitiszrfisir 838$ had depeséted R$.52.5SQ/~ aria’: alga
to pay R:eae9’F’,5G§,!- ‘kiiiihifi QQ dayg fmm the ciaie
” €35 €:Vid€;}CE{:€ 9? 3.13.: and, th€2*«:’~:%f9:’€, ii/1:3 Eawe: apgeéiats
39mg’: %3s€r:re§ {E/E3-ti: when {he assgssé Efaizérzgsif has
acirllitted Thi? whoie transa(t’i;in and eiggreed to
€f3’i1iF€% .’:1i3’T{}L§i1″£f. ii <)bviu.<s}y Ff1€f£1,E'1S that ithé:.–%j:<)ifi§j{a§.£1:"21i*;.V
had pI*<}V€{i his (#2135: f'§h€?I'€?fi}Af€f. {he_%""2:'p–;5_e,eiE'VV Sf Lhé"
.a<:<;:t.,1sst'3<:i was also Ciisnlissed.
5. Having tihus heard {:h_€r”‘3,€E1§’I1€’fi :::.:i>_i;:ns%’€:l “for the’
respondem and af”te”1’*.,_g’0iI1§mt;’i1.f§:ii§§1T1 Iihe/ jud”grn€nts of
the c::0uris below and D.W’ .1 and {E16
admission ma.d e..by ?fiin1 ; £:<; €i'«_f;”(if’i.$ 5 ._ {
7_1o’w.:_»..§:<:;nvig:tiIfs»g: the petit/ioner and
sentml-.. pay fijzé (5-fv 1,335,000/~.
Ts:i{€ %p€+s’:,i:ie.1*:-4 lacks merit and is
dismisgedf The 1’€SVp{)r£1d€3I1ii is at hiberty ‘£10 Withciraw the
. afnt>°u:ri”:t iI’:..dep0Sif .”‘«
Sé/7?;
33§§§§?é%:
<:§<<:t,!~-» j_
