~»:1:-
IN THE HIGH com? 0? KARNATAKA AT BANG-A'LQ'i?. E~».VV
mzrrsn THIS THE 2% DAY 012* DECEMBE§I'?iV.:é..f2§{§}8:'---
% 13EmRE_
'ma HONBLE MR.JUS'}'I CE :<.T:?AMA_1rm's ''
CRIMINAL REVISION 2'*i~:'?:*1frIs;_' "
No.9 85 19/1, B,V.K.iYEN'C}AR.;ROAD;'
BANGALORE - 33. _ Y.
REPBYITS PROPIQIETOR ' _ - '
M.ANJANEYULL%f.A§:~£<;D 48.31%.' " PETITIONER
:22? gm }172sgR3.$:%i.%:m2NA, ~ V V
" .gGE:.n'A}3c>:;'r 32 fag'; -------- --~ "
,N.._'1:st?> / 17, _5fx",».z._(":,I«".'€)SS,
AV
'33A'3'3§'3f'si9@F'33- 39; v V
R1:<..'P.;:3Y c:;.1-'».--.isj..;, HOLDER,
MA}f£..jUNA'TH .. RESPONDENT
{ 3?? SR} G.V.SUE§HAKAR, Amt;
iii-fish?
THIS CRL.R.P. ES FELEEI) UIS, 482 CF%.P.C. PRAYENG TO SET
-~!5;;i:-§II”I}E THE GRIEER E)’F,C»3.(36 RXSSEQ BY THE XXXEE ABEL. Cf}. 85
S.-J., AND SP1… JUDGE F0}? {EB} CASES, BANGESJVORE, IN
V’ C§§’L.A(NO.I383/2Cif35 ZN DISMISSING ‘E’E-iE APPERL FILEB BY THE
PETE. Arm asm <:QU:'mz~1c:: THE PETE. FRGM THE ROEBERS 09*
XX} A{)L..C.M.M. BANGALGRE, EN c:.r::.;~z0.1as?/(:3, }C}'I'.28/§/2005,
ms CORVECTIRG THE PETE. FGR THE OFFEHCES Pm/3.138 «:31?
P-E,i.ACi"§',
R/
'ms PETITION comma ON FOR Hz:ARr;+~2§"*i5;é£;;:é__':::*z§=r*,
€,'iC3URT MADE THE F'Oi,LC'*WING:
ORDEg 4 W
‘Thr: revision pciiiioner has C’.QII1t’§’.” Tr;-$3 with fl1i§:}2cfiii§0n
challfingizlg the Omar of co:1vi€:i:iG3;1 anil’-sféntcneséfipgtsgefl fiby *
lcarnczti 2:” A.CLM.M. Banga1o1f?é’,”V.:gn s:.c.f§-a..i88:7/V2003 ciatcd
28/912005 for the finder :38 of
Negotiafiie Insf:ru:A;I’1-::mts affizmed by
the learned Bangalam, in
(:;r1.A. No. 1353/ ; 2065.
Bzief are that the respcsndent hemm
had filed before the trial Court against the
pctiti.§gi1§2r.f0r {fie punishabla under Section 138 0f the
Am, 61: aficzjsation that the pefitioner herein had bormwcd
«i>’f– and towards rcpaynmsji of the same,
V V’ _ had ‘iss1x§:€{ cheque Ex.P.2f-:31″ a sum of Rs.:’30,(}€}(}/~ drawn
,”{y$yé1*’ Ltd, Chikpet Braacil, Bangalore. when the
. ‘sa_ id– cheque was presented for cncashnaent, the same came to
VT ‘iisd dislzonoured with ba13.ker’s memo “cxccacis arrangement”
” datad 15f1{)f2(}{}’2. Therefore, tbs:-: msponécnt herein get
ismmii legal notice to that petitioner demanding me chcqufi
U!
remained unclzaliexzged {he same is a prima faséié’ ‘eé?i駧1″1(;é’ _
to the efféct that petitianer isS_u;:§i _ =
respondent towards legaliy mcofierafiie :’
according to the revision pCt_iiiQnerA’v- ht: .is$:._:1£5€:_’~«–t}1;c?-~1sa;ici» ‘
chequfi as security :9 the
respondent is a s.’::ra1::gV».é”1 §:§::. he denied any
Iiability to pay pet:i.ti0ner
has failed ta” suppert of his
defe’z1c€ . ” been placed on recard
to dis{§x5€:}i§::¥’€V of respondent. Nething
xvtzrthfwhile hag?’ §’}€€fl “4.-=.Ii{fi.i:ea:f1 in the er-3ss–examir1ati:’«_de11ié§Wt§f case cf respondent and making
1ss}:1V1:r_;eV wifl not constitute rebuttal csf
_ ;;~e:5fi3’t3nd:f;I1i;?$}ti§ri{i{:I1ce. Hence, the flrfiiiiiafifif’ has failed to
“-. V;i3zio§:e fiefdre trial cczuxt, that them: is 110 iegally :’et:::3vcrab}e:
. fii’e_Vbt- -finder the cheque Ex.P.’2. Bath the Courts below
VT hair»: COI}C1.I.I’I’€i’I11Zi}’ held that the petitianar is guilty 0f the
U aforesaid offiznca.
‘E’. Further contention cf the petsitiener that nuzgy iegal
noiice 333$ been served an him by the respondem
flling the compiaim: caimot ha balieved.
has issued legal notice to the petiétiomrré K V’
and also tizrolzgh ‘i}.C:.P. Hewef;-w:n~;.__:ii)tj.Cé_ Se:1i1::
R.P.A.B. returned with .’V’%f.i;.I.SV*Vf:’)’e’VTviy,V”V.V The’
petitioner has :19: difiiiiiliétfls”€§1€n._ &3d'{“3Iff3SS ‘ éf§)’:~.;2;:;ur!:s
1!f,@£cV2irs;’r*.{‘ ‘§=7f’2£=: Cflufifi have not mmmitted any error #11
mappreciating the material evidence
piaéeri 3;; rééuid. Henge, this appeal fails and is Eiabie to
‘ ” é ” — .. dismizafied.
$. Accordingiy, :13:-:-; ravisiofi pe’::iii0:1_ is dimisseci afi
‘_ ‘ ‘~c£»e–‘s§;)i-:1 of any ::1e1*°it:s.
sdli
judge
*mVs