Smt D R Lakshmamma W/O Raju vs Mahadevappa S/O Basappa on 31 October, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT aANGALoRa_
DATED THIS THE 31" may or ocwosza, 2oa8{fff,
BEFORE: 4"' ' u

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A,$, pAcHHAé§3E"- .V=
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION y§;§é5 §§ 2o95"u

BETWEEN:

D.R.Lakshmamma,

W/o. Raju,

Aged about 64 years, . V

R/at No.108, A, gw».*

7" Cross, Extension, 1 ix; mV*_\u V

R.p.Road, Nanjahgfia;..'; 1 , av' "; PETITIONER/S

[By M/3. M.$,R3§efidfapfé5afl &:Aé3§cs.,.Adv3.}

AND:

Mahadevappé;a *
S/o. Basappa,'» .
R/at G.Mara1li V11

% ia9e«%
.Bi_lvge¢-1:3  ' ..... 

'§anjaggud.*j _=_ m RESPONDENT/S

{By srif-égaéfiésga, Adv.)

-|r4:4:

4_ ", This Crl.R.P. is filed u/Section 401 Cr.P.C. by

K theWAdvdcate praying to set aside the Judgment dt.

'afl_ 2$.1G,OS passed in Crl.A. No.42/01 on the file of

'f}thé 9.0., FTC--I, Mysore and also Judgment dt.

1._ T24:5y91 passed in C.C. No.513/99 on the file of the
"» Addl. C.J. [Jr. Dn.} & JMFC., Nanjangud.

This Crl.R.P. coming on for Adission this day,
the Court made the following:



7

under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, I do not

find any such grounds to warrant the interferenceifi.

8. There are concurrent finding of the Ceertsvd

below as regards the conviction and the scoee ef the "

revision is limited. Unless an error"anfiarent §fift5eQ
face of the record or any iiiegaiitf is7hronght to
the notice of this Court, ithe, evidence vadduced
cannot be re--appreciatedfi_ filn the éircumstances, I
de not find any ground to werrant the interference
as regards the eoneiction of the petitioner for the

offence undef Section'13§ cf the Aet.

9. i$he--Aenel1ate"fiourt has ordered the fine of
Rs.35,oo0~0a and airéttédité pay Rs.25,000~00 to the

respondent herein and the remaining amount of fine

fi9ffR§;16:fi00¢GQ was ordered ffff to be credited to the

Stste,t ' fee ileerned counsel for the petitioner

vE'Wsubmits that taking into consideration the financial

~:fieondition_ ef the petitioner, the fine amount be

"'redtcedq In the circumstances, I am of the opinion

V*.thst it wouid be just and proper to reduce the fine

Vf=,namount. Hence, I answer the point partly in

 affirmative and partly in negative and proceed to

pass the following: €Xi:%%



ORDER

The petition is allowed in part, aff1;@;fi§§¢§e_

conviction of the petitioner for the offencevnhoenii.

Section 138 of the Act. The fine”amonnt,ieh;eduoeo;

to Rs.30,000*O0 and out of ntheh sé1a~.am¢§nt;,

Rs.25,000-O0 shall be paidiitiovtheA.VrespondentmV”hei;ein ” V

and the remaining amonnt of fiRsL5,00o4G0, shall be
credited to the .:1»’¢:_vRs.25,ooo»oo
shall be paid by.the petitione; to £3; respondent
within two default the

petitioner $h31I_ nndef¢o~ imprisonment for two

months.

Sd/–

Judge