A1¢V'i'Mai'n; Bviapujinagar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.3usT1cE..3AwA{:r"ié;AHi:_:si'"=
CRL.R.P. No.14ér8/zioos
BETWEEN: 2 0 0'
Saifuila Sharief, ¥VIajor,_.
NO.i778, VI Main, IX 'Cfi3.SS,
RPC Layout, Bangaiore'--"4t0.~. '-- __ ,
Working at Indian Instit_ute._of.'_
Business Manag:ement'as"'V.:V " :_ .
Anaiyist Prog2_rarnjm'er, =i A '
Bannerghatta"Rda.d';; " I y_ .. .
Bangalore; _ r y' ...Petitioner
(By Advwoflctate)
S.Anavndkurnar, ' Mtajodr-.
No;~'.Z?../3_,'11"' Cro~ss_,
' ,BanVgat_o're'f ...Respondent
*{.By~'sr.i 'i3I.'s:.i}i:a'dimani, Advocate)
..'Ti:iis Cr|.R.P. is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401
2 nCr';4E?.C. praying to set--aside the judgment and order of
'r.V'Conx/cition in C.C.No.34106/2000 dated 10.12.2002 on the
'file of the XVI Addi.C.M.M., Bangalore and in
_.rCri.A.No.10/2003 dated 22.7.2005 on the file of the P.O.
FTC--VII, Bangalore City.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the foilowing;
'T'!
./'
ORDER
This petition is by the convicted accused
impugned judgment dated 22.7.2005 in
on the file of iudge, Fast TrackerC,oLi__rt'{_’Sa’ngg.a’Ioregii*
confirming the judgment in__C.C}’i*io’.’3410§§/2.000′
10.12.2002 convicting the petiVfi»o:ner_forioffence punishable
under Section 138 Instruments Act
(hereinafter for short theg_’V:i3\ct’9):’;__VV
2 . H e.a”rd’
the respondent initiated
prosecu’t’io_n’ of the Apfet»iti’o:ri’er”‘for offence under Section 138
of the rggxctuonathe’ gr-ouznd that in relation to debt/legal
. 9′”*Iiabii!ity”-“i’n asum of”‘ii’s.14,10,000/–, he issued cheques for
9%’h.sgsi9,oo,ooo/- and 3,5o,ooo/~ which were
diAsh._0novured~~;A9 Then the parties entered into Memorandum
ofVggMu.tu.a:| Understanding (hereinafter for short referred to
dated 15.7.1999. In terms of M00, the accused
….i.ssued cheques covering Rs.14,10,000/– out of which one
cheque dated 15.1.1999 and the other cheque dated
1.8.1999 were presented to the Bank, but were
.-3/\:”
dishonoured for want of funds. On dishonour of the
cheques, statutory notice issued was aiso not
The accused denied liability and was put
trial, the complainant examined hirnself and’p”rod»uced_A.thrreV 99’
impugned cheque, bank endorse1meint,*~’Viega|_”
acknowiedgrnent. He also produced copy ofythe dated
15.7.1999. Placing reliance on.—-th,ev–MO_l}, ‘elaiirnsi that the
accused had issued for Rs.50,000/–,
which was one_:of__ to discharge
the Iiability.”9l”‘h_§3′::~a.c;cused,_i_s–e_rio’us.lyguestioned prosecution
on the.–ground’ ;th,a.t has initiated other
prosecution. §’trial Judge negated all the
defence Aggrieved by it, he was in
criV_rn’i,nallA’aopeal’,”~w,h_l_ch was also rejected. Against both the
‘ j,u’dgm-e_n’ts’,«.he is En revision.
T_hi’.sllrevision came up for final hearing along with
Crl.R…Pv…!’lo.1497/2005 in which the cheques for
xé’~..VRs..9l,0O,0OO/~ and Rs.3,S0,000/~ was an issue for
V. …consideration. By a detailed order, the said revision has
been allowed, wherein it ls held that En terms of the MOU
No.15.7.1999, the liability cast on the accused under the
._ “‘3 /r
,<\_';_1,"~,,.€,;,.
cheque was postponed in terms of the agreement and
hence there was no cause of action and he-‘nce<«.._t!je
prosecution of the petitioner for an offence un;der_f
138 of the Act has been set-aside._,
5. In the instant case, theé’–proceedgi,n”gs.V”rélate”to’z
cheque of Rs.50,000/–, al|eged’c’t:ol’havebeen -hissuedwflby the V
accused in terms 1999. This
cheque, in the said to .pe’ef.I’V_su’bstitution to the
earlier cheque4is:su’ed.Ii-.Th%e presented the
said The contention of
accused enforceable after 2 years
cannotxfbe’acc’e»pt’e.dA~.lb’e@’u’s’e the cheque bears the date
1.8.3999. Traerefo’re flthevscheque would be enforceable as
on’i”thé-.”‘¢§at’e__it bears.’ The terms of the MOU aiso indicate
th.atV&icheq%.ueVs.c~in”question had been issued to be presented
on’-theV__date=mentioned, within a period of 1 year.
if The other contention is that the cheque has been
tampered. The date has been tampered and the amount
i also. I am unable to accept this ground for the reason that
for every alteration, there is signature of the accused. The
L/’
U
to impose fine equai, double the amount covered tinder
the cheque. I decline to interfere with the
sentence. Therefore the petition faiis.
8. Accordingly, the petition
However the orderVipa”3.sed thy the, Eiourtfl’
imposing another surn_.of Rs:S.,.o0L0/’:.._»to he”‘credit;ed to the
State is set–aside. it 2
On recove:r*,r__of shail be paid
to the permissibie under
it i
So}-
HEDGE