-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29": DAY OF JULY, 2010
BEFORE .
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASPI I
CRIMINAL REVISION PETI1fIoI§_ :AN0.'954'/20'1--0 I I 1}
BETWEEN:
Srnt.Flavy D'Souza
Adult V
W/0 Diieep Peirera
R/a # 4-142, Anand Nagar _
Akashbhavan _ A v_ A
Kavoor Post & ViI}age;--._ I I ....PETI"I'IOI\EER
Adv.)
' ' ' ' ., .V _ «_ I
M/S _
Finance Ltd Regd. 'Qffice.12'3._,_ Zimgappa Nikethan
Chennai, & Ii'ay"iI1g its. _
Branch VO_fiice at Zndfloor, '-
_ VCIySta1_§.Arcade, Baim atta A.
Road,'-Mangalon-3-01 I """ 'E
' . RepreSeIIt_ec1 A by Saint. Sujatha
Sarr:path., VV_/ 0 Sagnpatkx
42'3..reatS.
= R/ a Usha Kjran.V_I"xi3artment
B-Biock. Flat 140.305, Falnir
*~.. _ M.anga1ore7 ...RESPONDENT
E TIIIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
“s.£¥:’cf1*I0N= 39′? READ vvrm 401 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS
‘H-ONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
“I’*–I)f1j,0fI*/12/09 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. 8.: 3.). UK.
‘WMANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.419/08 AND CONFIRMING THE
A».__4JVU’DGMENT DT.15.10.08 PASSED BY THE JMFC-IV, MANGALORE.
D.K. IN C.C.NO.2852/08.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
0 R D E R
There is delay of 120 days in filing this revision petition.
Petitioner has called in question the
Crl.A.No.4I9/2008 dated 7.12.2009 on the ofi..seései’.:}uné”
Judge, Mangalore, confirming the Zjiidgment of’. K;
JMFC, Mangalore. in c.c.No.2852/zoosiaatled
2. Respondent had filed a under Section
200 of Cr.P.C. for the offeiice 138 of
Negotiable Instruments the petitioner
herein had borrowledifa he did not
pay the said’ thesame, he had issued a
cheque a;nd”tl’1e,l.presented to the banker of the
complainant, «dishonoureq-s’ As against
which, the complainant had» issued a notice. However, the notice
‘l’h’ere–after, a private complaint was filed before
it ‘ ..
got examined himself as PW1 and
Z”‘~produced-,,Exs.P1–original cheque, P2–endorsement, P3–legal
it notice,r}?4–receipt for having sent notice, P5–post cover and P6-
. ‘ Fewer of Attorney.
4. Though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity,
he did not avail the opportunity to lead any evidence. Only
-3-
contention that was raised before the trial Court was, there was
no service of notice. But the address shown by the petitioner in
the trial Court, is the same address to which the notice sent
and held that, there is service of notice under Section’
General Clauses Act. The Appellate Court on co_n”si:d.erativon
confirmed the judgment
5. There is delay of 120Fdays in’-filirrg th;i’sAV.:pe.tition.
satisfactory explanation is given,kl’«.,aIn__not”satisfied? with the
explanation. Hence, app1ic.at%ton201O dismissed.
Consequently, revision alsovtstiandslV.d1sm’£ssed§i_._
Sd/ –
JUDGE