IN THE HIGH couar or KARNATAKA AT BANGAL0Rg_
DATED THIS THE 3"" nay or NOVEMBER, 2oa3»f;t=t
BEFORE: 't V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A,$. PACHHA§§?$'Lt_ _t
CRIMINAL REVISION pETITIoRVN§.§é7 §§f2o08'\t>t'
BETWEEN:
Lakshmi Ajith,
Major, "wt_
W/0. D.R.Ajitkumar, -1 f"
R/at No.129, Residency R936, =_? 3a':
Bangalore~56O Q25,=_ ii I ;=-,'~}.u 4' PETITIONER/S
[By Sri. B.s;égb$afi§fiyam;*A§§;}:,3
AND:
M.R.Phanindra. .V ,t. 2
Sfo. RamaiahtSetty, '."
Major, .. " K_1 ". "
Rfat NO}24y 'flhédgachala N1laya',
:fGzound Flpgr, 3" Main;
IChama;ajpet;.x
Banga1ore~;8,V:t«. , RESPONDENT/S
{By Mfé. tfitfififélidhar & K.T.Venkateshmurthy, Advs.}
'~k~ir~ir
t7 * This Crl.R.P. is filed u/Section 397 r/w. 401
t"tCr}P;C. by the advocate for the petitioner, praying
to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence
of. fine dt. 10.10.03 passed by the XII ACMM.,
.;*3v;ore, in c.c. No.2961§/2000 and the Judgment dt.
; 31.1.2008 passed 'by' the XXXVI Addl. City" Civil &
S.J., B'lore, in Crl.A. No.615/2003 and acquit the
petitioner by dismissing the complaint, by allowing
the above Crl.R.P.
This Crl.R.P. coming on for Admission,_ this
day, the court made the following: 1 1
ORDER
Though the matter is fl poated , toga} _ for}
admission, with the consent of¥Ahoth the fzéahgéd *0
counsel, the matter is taken uh for final-diegosal.
2. The petitioner hes ohallengeo his conviction
for the offence under Seotloh lfié of the Negotiable
Instruments Aot fiéherelnafterr referred to as “the
Act”] and the sentence ifiegeon and confirmed in the
appeal before the Sessions Court.
3. The faot$_rele§ant for the purpose of this
appeal hreras under: V
lg’ rThe_*reshohdent filed a complaint before the
ff, Trial Court alleging that in the month of October
:h_ 1999, athehaaooused approached him for a loan of
Rffie;1}0@,000-00 for business purpose with an
lbL assfirahoe to repay the said loan within a short
fieriod. The complainant i.e., the respondent herein
advanced the hand loan of Rs.1,00,000–00 and in turn
0 the petitioner i.e., the accused herein issued the
cheque bearing No.914679, dated 10.04.2000 for the
3
said amount drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Ayenue
Road, Bangalore. The respondent presented the said
cheque to the bank for encashment and the samejnas”.
returned with an endorsement of _~’insufficient’=
funds’. It is again on O9.10.2OQ0.jthe cheqne Rae
presented for encahsment to_the banker and again it ‘,
was returned with the sane ‘endcrsefienti dated
10. 10.2000. Ultimately, ._ u,\;”e.~3ponciéht”‘V issued
notice dated 24.10.2006 denanding the amount and he
sent the said, host and also
under certificate” of’ posting. ._ The said notice
returned with an endorsenent by the postal officials
as ‘not ciainedi} the the petitioner did not comply
with the dem\a11d,x’ ._the”v.<:_::omplaint came to be filed
_beforef the Trial_%§ourt for taking action under
'dSection 133 of the Act.
‘V:fi’ pnreuance of the summons issued, the
VW,_§etitionergappeared before the Trial Court for the
‘v charge nnder Section 138 of the Act. The trial was
d>,_held and the respondent was exmined as P.W.1 and in
“the evidence he got marked documents Exs.P1 to 7.
it The petitioner was examined as D.W.1 and document
Ex.B1 was admitted in the evidence. The Trial Court
if:
X’
4
on appreciation of the evidence on record convicted
the petitioner for the offence under Section lfih oi
the Act and ordered to pay a fine of R3.2{6OrQQfi;Gdt_
and in default to undergo simple imprisonment :§;*~
one year and further directed to pfiy an mount oft
Rs.1,50,000wO0 to the reepondent_ as c¢mpensatioh;:*,
Aggrieved by the said ‘finder? lthet’ipetitioner
approached the Sessione Court et hangelore in Crl.A.
No.615/2003 and the said eppeal cane to be dismissed
by Judgment andtggrderfifldatedLihi;Oli2d08 confirming
the conviction and the §ehtence.,’Aggrieved by the
concurrent”findind of conniction; the petitioner has
approached this Court in reyiaion.
4.p. I heve heard the learned counsel for the
; petitioner and also the respondent.
afl E, rgathsgne learned counsel for the parties
Vdbefore”– thist; Court submit that taking into
r,jh¢on£ideration the financial condition of the
‘petitioner, the compensation may be reduced to
RtR$,1;30,000-00 and the fine amount payable and to be
‘H’~credited to the State may be reduced to
‘ Rs.25,000-O0. They do not have anything to say with
regard to the appreciation of the material placed on
54
5
record and with regard to the validity 0f the Order.
They have confined their submission only wfor
reduction of the compensation and also the “fine,
amount. 3 h l K V
6. Taking into consideration, the is§hmisaion7,
made by both the counsel and lalso’ thee fineneiaili
condition of the petitioner} i think in the interest
of justice, it would he just end prooet to reduce
the total fine amount to Rs.1g§5}0o§4QO and out of
the said fine amount, on nmonng of eoi1,3o,ooo«oo
shall be payen;e’;ne _£hQn”§e§bonoént5 and the fine
amount of §e.2h;D§%;0oQnéhalliWte credited to the
State. In”thecitcemetances, I proceed to pass the
following:L
ORDER
is allowed in part by modifying
Vl_ the Juégmegt hand Order of the courts below. The
nfanount»of fine is reduced to Rs.1,s5,ooo~oo. Out of
“*c_tno’fioté1 fine amount, an amount of Ro.1,3o,ooo«oo
i shall be paid to the respondent as compensation and
l’» the remaining amount of Rs.25,000~0O shall be
Vlcredited to the state. The amount in deposit shall
5 K
fiinfix
be paid to the respcmdent and the remaining amcgaunt
shall be paid within one month frczam this
in default, the petitioner is ordered
simple imprisczanment for a period_Vgf_ 6 mg:>h’ti1ét;’:.’V”
I udqett
Ksm*