1 Crl.RP I314»/06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER "
BEFORE
THE HONTBLE MRJUSTECE in
CRIMINAL REVISION PsT1vT10N'"Nc§'.'--_iA'3 1 4 2006' . i " L
BEIWEEN
2. Sai V. Dattani,
S/0. Vijai Dattani, __ _ _
No. 76, IFIoor, NaHdafI€II1j~,. ' i _ ,
Chamiers Road, Chennai--'35. '
2. K. Palani @_:E:'a'iani
S/0 Kodhaiiidarnfi _ . .
Havmg office at'--l.\Ia.--._ 10,,
Mooker I'Ja1iarn_uth1i Sitreseit;
chenng:_sQo"'o'm__ " ...PE'I'ITIONER/S
(S11. Udajfa Holia, fdr" I3. "Manjunath, Adv.)
AND V a i x d
S. Gandhi ," _
'V 0 S1._1'baF~3Ign*§'1'1i%. ..... .. v
N0; 5v9.'"H CTQS9,
'Bhasyam I"-iz;ga,r:; ' '
SI*31.raIr;pud1'3.15I1«._i.' V
Banga1ore--2I..V_"\:._ RESPONDENT/S
V (By Sf{."'C. Pdttéfsi Raman, Adv.)
=i=**$
Criminal Revision Petition is flied under Section 39'?
__C_r.F.C'p'raying to set aside the judgment dt.23.6.06 passed by the
District and Sessions Judge [F'£'CmV} . Bangalore, in
, Cr}.-A.No.1686/2005, confirming the judgment dt.29/I1/2005 in
A "c.c.No.14718/2003 on the file ofthe XIX Addi.C.M.M., Bangalore.
2 CFLRP 1314/06
This Criminal Revision Petition having been hearcfyand
reserved coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, _the'€o'urt,
pronounced the following: ' . "
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged
sentence for the offence under_S_ection-.Ai3.8 of [thc’A.Negot’iab1e.”‘i.
Instruments Act [hereinafter calietfas ‘the short) on a
trial held by the Additional e~:1″\j(ie:t”r”opo1itan’A Magistrate.
Bangalore. and the order by the Fast
Track Court. Bangaioije.
2. The fa.ct’s.1fe1eVant–.for’ the”ipui§pose of this revision are
as under:
I will buer«.re1″err’ingVAto” parties as per their rank before
4_ . the T1’i.a5tCotart for fhiespiirpose o_f convenience.
_vpv’e.titionev:rs herein are the accused 2 and 3 whereas
the re.sui)on(ient:’..« the complainant who filed the complaint
_._f.f’_:’:..«..uV1i.der Section 200 Cr.P.C. for taking action against the
«._acc_uvsed”‘Afor the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The first
—..’a:ccu’sed is a company of which Accused }.\}’os.2 and 3 are the
‘v””i.,_’4’4partners. The cornpiainant had an acquaintance with the
X
,
5, /
. V
\,,~’4..,»—
11 CrI.RP1314/O6
the accused on different occasions. As to why he did not get the
On Demand Promissory Note on the first occasion when he
paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/– on the first occasion,
Rs.1,50,000/– on the second occasion, Rs.1,5o,oopo/§{‘V’o}:-.ee£iao
third occasion and Rs.2,50,000/– on the fourth1.’:.:oc::-asivofn
stated by him in the evidence is HQE:mfU1’th?(ff’i’I1ifllfg%4V:’ ‘fJ\i’Vhefi so
much of amount was advanced
accused on each of these occa»s.§.¢:Cv:$”n.:3.p itA.\”vo_uidVVAh’eA th:e”‘r1atura1″‘
conduct of a person to get, the ioandocuinents executed and he
keeps quiet without gettin’ét’.tthe*i_ iéromissory Note all
along till o4.04.2oo;..__
13_:”._A” is found in the evidence of
the complainanht wherein in the cross examination, he
.«vv.states’~that’ he paid«R_s_,2=,50,000/– on the fourth occasion at
V7C11enn.ai amount was paid in the month of December
complainant had paid this amount in
~Decernber”f.?,V00é, then there was no question of the complainant
tiieaccused executing the On Demand Promissory Note for
— on 04.04.2002 i.e., eight months earlier to the
‘<..:am'ount advanced on the fourth occasion by the complainant.
L4 Crl.RP E31-at/06
this reason that the accused contend that the document
EXs.P.1 and 19.13 have been created by the complairiarit. in
collusion with the said Narendran who must have §t«aE{en'__'t'h'e:s"c;..g
documents while he was dropped from the_ "of _
Accused No. 1 Company.
16. This suggestion gets 1′.i’1€_force’gi_n’-‘view ;
circumstances narrated in the aboVe_V’hparas.” doubtful
circumstance which couldwbe made. fromg the allegations in
the complaint is that in Para states that the
accused approachedigcpand received “a of..Rs.8,50,000/~ from
the compvlainantijj.forl?theirHlsusiness purpose by assuring to
return thesame to the complainant. in Para
3, he states tiia:_by .cons’iclei’ing the urgency, he paid a sum of
to the”””accused and on the same day. i.e.,
and 3 accused executed E2x.P.13 the On
Dernand Proniisshry Note in favour of the complainant for the
said sum, if the accused had to pay an amount. within six
the date of last payment, which was paid in the
of December 2002, as stated by PW.1 in is evidence, the
by “issuance of the cheque Ex.P.1 dated 19.12.2002 which was in
mg
5/’ “4)A4l ~