_1_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'THE 1 1"' DAY OF JUNE, 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST§C.E S{}'BHASH BAEDI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.146l200?;~~---- f
Bbééviffifi ELEM:
Sn'. Anwar,
S] 0 Abciul Razak,
Aged 31 years,
R] a Jcpgu Patna,
Kankanady Post
Mangalore £).¥{.
}5E§Ti;i'I}ONER
(By Sri.A. Keshava Bhat 1 Aélvs.)
Sri.Umeshchanc1.;"a, .--
S / 0 Venkataraména ".f*}he'£:tigar; ' "
Major, R] :;i E\i.':t:;:1c1agc3'i:"1;_11VfaV Hcmse,
INE-Lar '3'Ch-091,
Iiinniiaamtaza; Mazigalorc: 13.x.
' " RESPONDENT
This c;~1.~:=:1>;'.%'1;ag flied 1:13.39? R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying
to] set gsidc the order dated 3.10.2006 passed in
Q"L3:'1{A No.110,[_2005 on the file of the 11 Add}. Dist. 8:. S.J., [).K.,
.1 and set aside the juégment and sentence elated
' 1';i3§-:;>.p()5 fiassed in {3.C.No.'i~3(}2/2003 on the file of the V JMFC3,
_V Mstngalorc.
" '" '1'his revision petiiion coming on £01' admjasion this day,
vthér' Court made the foilowing:
ORDER
This revision is against the jtidgment of co11vig.§;b1i1’V’a:{3i;si”‘-«
order of sentence in (“1.C.No.9(}’2/ S2003 confumeezi H
Appea} No. 1 10/2005. ”
2. Respondent filed 21 cQzL1p}ain«t”._:é1flcging; V’A’
petitioner herein had bonowerzd Rs.3′?,.§}00[- . t§;atV, he
would pay the same: on or .§§ef9Ie ‘iglé ha
had issued cheque dated However,
on pmsentation sf the pmtitioner
returned the SaII}?{“§’V\3£;%i_tl!;1:’fi3::§si1fI’iCi£I3Cj.7 of funds”.
In this I’Cg3I7(..’}.’.”‘t3.”!,(V”3V.:’}T7fi’S]fi£§;§1€1CiZt notice calling upon
the petitiontfri tcs ‘pa-1y However, the pctiti0ne:t*
did 110-‘spay the Vé*i:::;1t)’%L;11tV.; respondent flied a complaint.
‘V ” _ 3. t11f:&’i’1ia}}:fc5i3.i;t, respondtsnt got himself axmnined
as E:-:s.P1 to P4. Petitioner gut hjmseif”
‘ V’ L”A..£:<:a1ninE:d éis ';i;'. .
_”i’11eV”p:etiti0fier herein axccpt denial of the chcqae,
been stated by him. ‘I’h.c: cheque belongs to the
is not in disputc. It is not honour is also not in dispute.
~. ‘Al”‘i1c1V’c is no evidencc adduced by the pstitjonexf to mbut the
gresumption arising under Section 139 of the Negofigiblc
instruments Act.
5. The Thai Court based 031 the evidgggcc hag 131}? u
accused and same is confirmed by the: :!§§3p:r31i;:g1.?.e”‘€?;::>1;i’t*; : f
this is rcvisional (3o’u.1.'”t, it ca1mot»T’rc–ap1ifeci”a1:e tJ;e’- ;2vigiez1{f;e, VA
howcvez’, even otherwise finom t}1t$ ‘ the
lespondent, it. is clear that, money
but had not made the pay”me1:A1f.V_v’i”A1,1g§ groved by
the respondent. Tlizmifi no: with the
said j’udgment fiezlizence.
Acco1xjiifi$}y,:..: fails and Same is
dismisfied.
Sd/Q
I!if<ié'*"
*A.};/ _