IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA, BANGA:x)RE
DATED THIS THE um DAY 01:' JUL1fAJ20Ct3%%%%%AA{% % u
BEFORE ,:V 7 7%
THE HON'BLE MR. Jusfrfxcz: I2.tB.i$IAII<5 .
CRIMINAL REVISION PE'm'1oN N«Q;73%1 op' T T
BETWEEN
Smt. Vanajakshi, _
W/0 Nagaraga, V " V'
Age: Major, R/0 No.2OG5,' __ " '
Hongkong Bazar, '
MY501'?"- Pfititiener
(By §4i.P ';§&d#ocate)
AND: .... M , .
The Exeéttfiixre 4' ~
Sn. Snkanmsizwara Temple,
Nanja;La;gud."" ~. . zmaspondent
" (By ?;N.z2aghapathy, Advocate)
crznainm Revision Petition is filed under
Sccfiori 397 r;w 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
: - Judgmfint order of the Fast Track Court--IV, Mysore in
' --Cr1.A.No."i.32'f2005 Dated 16--1«-2006 and Judgment and
"~'-'«.__(:rd::r of Additional C.J. (Jr. Dn.) & JMFQ, Nanjangud,
"£i.--.{}.No.938/2000 dated 16-7-2005 and acquit the
jpetitioricr of all the charges.
h u This petition coming on for hearing, this day the Court,
" "amade the following:
/('Z93-Lxc,L»U*'-_»
ORDER
The mtitienar/accused isco11vi(:t5cdH”feif» ‘é;n4_’_gf:)ffi:n¢’c ii
punishable under Section of is J
sentenced to undergo S.I foi’§vat9 f:1i1*ect’:§ci
to. pay commnsation of Rs. – ‘iziic asamplainant,
in default to under gov of three years
by an order of _§:o_§1vi<;._tidi1' 'dated 16-7-2005
passed by :w('«"Ir.c1I1) and J.M.F.C
Nanjangudi The said order of
convictiim " 4' was challenged in
Cr1.A.No. Presiding Officer, Fast Track
dated 16-1-2006 confirming"
éfenviction of the petitioner for an offence
puf;i.5’r;i1}’azbigé.’.vi3=::§ii€:Vr Section 133 of the N.I.Act, modified the
‘gifder 29:? schtcnce in the following terms: Directed the
accused to pay compensation of sum sf
” ..__”Rs.V’iO,0O,0OO/«; sentence of iinpriserlment for tum years is
feduccd to one yaar arid the default sentence of three years
is reduced to three months. /q1>w\»<'«*~:I*'–"
2. The certified copy of the order which was. on
18-1»-“2006 and delivered on 26–1-2006 a
conlpensatien of Rs.I,O0.000/-f_,i$_ ozvjefe’ci_’;V
Whereas the counsel fer the J
produced a xerex cepy of
which a correction hare. _” fiade to read
as compensation payebleis (ten Iakhs) . The
copy (if the f11ef:1″” eeaexllo is taken on
record and :_.t:.–‘1e ae’£1″ue and correct order
passed ~ V
herein had participated in a
tende:§_for “iaddu Prasadam and Sugar Candy
* 12€eS”a”successfLfl bidder for the supply of the
Temple, Nanjangud. Towards
t1’1e.flbid she was due in a sum of Rs.4,63,864/-
‘tewartie Prasadam and Rs.4,65,627/- for the supply
‘ ef Candy Prasadam and as such she issued cheques
H12-4-2000 and I5-5-.2000 respectively for the said
‘V V Etmounts. The cheques so issued were presented for
encashment on 20-3-2009. Both the cheques and
13.2 were returned with bankers endorseziierif
ixisuflicient. Exs.F’.3 and R5 are the
The eheques so returned were re’preeeiited’-fer. f3:I.1C’.’i:!i:.’SI”.liA1;Zlil€*_I1t ‘A i
as the petitioner/accused Vi’e§e.este£i the
reyresentation of the eagle. iiievpreaientation of
cheques again they} _wei*a with bankers
endorsement by the bankers.
As the honour, a legal notice
came tcibe accused on 16-8-2000
calling Vliipdii eceueed to make goed the
amount coveted’ :.1V1:ecler. t:}1~e’»iV two cheques. Despite the service
‘ of V’é31€x’*P.8, the petitioner failed to make good
under the said two cheques. As such a
eoififiiéhlt to be filed against the petitioner/accused for
an offeiieei-punishable tinder Section 138 of the N.I.Ae1:.
P.W.1 S.RaIna111urthy, executive ofiieer of
ii :’.4:V”SI1′.VSn’ikanteshwara Tempie, Nanjangud had deposed that
V ‘4 “the petitioner] accused had participated 1’11 the tender. She
was a successful bidder and towards the tender. she
had issued Ex.P.1 and I-3.2 and the chwuee-‘ eretfc
presented for encashment and the…s;_m1e_*
and were returned with bankers endorsement tneufiieient it
funds. Despite service of noti:ce__whieh:__is
the production :31’ 10 eertificate of
posting Ex.P.9, the failed to pay the
amount in question.
5. it first appellate Court
appreciéitiiigi’ * 35. _– record held that the
petitionewfaecosed’ of an offence punishable
under of N.I.Act. Except contending that
“tbs ” not have been re-presented for
tgood wound is made out in the present
to interfere in the order of conviction of the
i i i ” ‘T 1 ii” * accused.
As regards the sentence, it is submitted that the
V u”=s.e11tence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is
harsh and excessive and the petitioner being a lady if were