Sri C M Muni Raju vs Sri Lava Kumar on 27 August, 2009

3 €rl.R§ l39§fU§

v*ew of their gasd reiatiGa5h:§, tfie accus

.5"

(Y:
Q

apprsaahed the camplainaii fa: financiai a3sistance

of Rs.15,§G§--§Q to @§enT 3 pzovision store,  ':fn@

c0m§iaina§t in gsoa faitfi paid tfig amouny by w$y OE

financial assistance ta the accused gm hfimaaitariénu

grounfia in tha mwnth of $ugu$tg'2G§;._w;fih"_an

agreement that the said ,am@u§t  is EQIAEQ: ra§a:a.

within 2% manths with inteieét 2fi:'2%*p;m.7% As the

acaused did not :epayU:he'afidufit $3 agr@éd"upoa, thg
complainant insistad fe: refiaymené and thfi accusad
issued the aheqfia.dafi:fi'i5.;Eg2Q§fl1féz an amount of

Rs.15,oi:s»T:>'::::A.,:i.;md"f§&:ee"~.;~;'a1d  ':'§»Leque was Eubmitted ta;

tha baEér'.fdr_ Qficasfififint, and it returneé with an

i

end0r3ementRVdatefi Q1:l2.2GGG and §~.G}.2QGE as for

"a;nsu£iiQiént f§nds-v The camplainant issued thé

'1nQ:iaer *Bu:}_the accused did mat comgly with the

demanfi;  :§Eflg"the circumstaficea, the campiainant

.a;§z§5Qhéd"éhe trial Csurt andar Sestien 20$ C§.?.C.

'fcr,ihe ¢ffemC@ punighabig ander S€GtiG§ 138 of :he

" .§:<A:§:'.*-- 

The trial Sear: tack the cognizance ané iasued
ihe pracass. Gm appéarance Qf ihe accased, fiis piaa

was racarfiefi. Theraafter, tfie camgiaimant was

DC



4 Cri.RP l$§G/Q8

examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence got mayked the
dmcumenta Ex3.?i ta ?. ?h@ statamefit of tfie adfiused

was recorded under Section 313 Cr.?.C. He fiaévfiaken

the defence ei totai &§ni&i. The acCu3edVh§S-b@éfi 

examined as D.%.1 anfi a witnegsi D,W}2,'v ;?§e

 

documeatg €33.81 :0 is have béen{aamit:¢a.im~:h '

evidence. The trial Ckxfiflf gm a§preci&ti§n»§f7 the.'

material an record gemvicfi%fiJ tag é¢Cfi%§fi EfGf the
Gffence punishabie §n§%r_§ec§§§fi Eé8 cf the Act and
ordered :5 undgrgo s;flpig.i&§%i$éfifi§$§ far 6 menths
and to pay' 3' §z§g g§%_R%-3«§§f~s@; in default ta
undexggygiméifi'ifigri2§mfiéfi%*fér 2 nmmths and aisc
o:de:ea\:§ gag {§§»§§m§§§sét:sn sf Rs.15,GQG~GG is

the c$mp1éifiamt.. Afigggievefi E3; the conyictien and

_V3@mtefi$@*the accused apgreashed tfia Sessicns Geuri

A*.in'=Cr;m£aal 'Appeal Ho.11§f2GQ6. ?he gaid a§peai

ai$G cafié ta hé dismissed an merits. figgrieveé by

the émmcgtrefit findings sf CGfiViCtiS§ and S@§t@§C€,

."xfh€_aCCU§é§ has aggraached thia Court in revisian.

"-£1 Z hava heard the iaarmed Caansel for the

'"»§@§itioner ax alae the laarned csunsel far the

«regpandent. yi:~



U!
K}
F":

*'-*\-I
%
§_...\
("J2
'm
C)
'M.

£1")
ax»

U1

The yoint that ariges for my csnaideratioa

PW:
U}
1:

ET?

flhether the cofivictian ef th

petitisner for the Off@DCé undep_ 

vi"
(2)

Sectien 138 sf the Act and _E

ff?'
 W ..

sentence therean as ozderad by~~ E

trial Court and cQnfirmed""hyz th@ '
iowar agpeiiatg Caurt is iiflegai 3$& 
pervarse? V 2 V "

6. it is the contentidg of thé,learnefi counsei

fa}: the petitioner :;}s'a.:; anwAV'é;z:m:.;:;::"?AV:;:' ;2_s.:";::,';'5::)a::--::'2::;v is;

in deposit. beféigr the. triai  Court and that the
petitioher is :ea@y.:c gay the remaimiaq amcunt of

R3.2,5@Sm¥Q_amd :eq§ésfi2d is aet aside the aemtence

vVGf imgrisnnmefit by r$ducing the fine amouni.

'§er, c@g?:a, the iearned ceunsei f&r

W
:1'
('El

re3pGfiden:"f$m§pe:t$ tha Judgment and Qfdéf cf the

 $GUftS,EéiGW.

_L E have acrutimized tha gfiterial giacéfi on

V HVE§dQKfi and aiaa the Sudgmeat afifi Order of the Qaurts

ibaiew. It is reievan: to note that the accused is a

farmer and was intanding ta agea 3 pravigian gtore,

fer which E9 somgfit financial aasistance of

04



Rs.15,G@GwQQ fgom the csmglainafit. in that_regaxd

ha has isauefi a cheque at £z.P1 afid when Ehéufihéque

wa3 mraaeated fer encashment, it ;eiurm@d'w§§h'a&a

¢

endorsememi sf insufficient fund$ a$T§éixEXé:P2Van&'

3, E:<:.E3§ is tize copy (3.3? the dggma;-mi"-:,s's§;4;aV:.::v:;y-

3

the csmpiainamt by regi§%@:ed,'pQéf, Ekgi

:.\J~; 9

pasta} receipt, Ex.?6 is t§e:afikn0fi:e§gém§fit s:q&ed
by the accused an§DT$x.§§ iiéQ %fiG' cer£i%icate of
posting. it is rele§§fifi_$§ $ofié €b§fi D.%s.1 amd 2
have b@en ega$}fiéd41ang Q&hé jfi@§fiméhf$ £23.31 to 5
have been Qdfigggégx§if§fié.%v§fi@n¢e. The perusal sf
their  é?id$§$e %&§9§  Eat  3@§§al 3&3 maiariai ta
discar$f'fiie' ¢Q§téfi§éH§§f. tfie complaint and the

dacumeats", isd§Qefl4". }Rnyhow; the yetitioner has

_ agreefiV rta Rpay $s.2,5U@~Gfi and taking i§tG

cansideiétiég tha fact that he is raady and wiiiing

Ea gag-{ha fime amount, ha is net sericus as ragards

con§§ct:wn Ear :h@ offemce under Sectifin 238 mi tne

'" 'Act ii cénaerned. The material §l&ced on racard 13

7$ufficient to prove ihe offence aade: Section 338 of

'"th3 Act. It 13 Gfii" whe quegtian of Senténce tfiat

 % has to ba modifieé. in the circumstances, I answer

ifie paiat partly 1% affirmative ané gartiy in

negative and prccaaé to pasg the feiiawingz @(:\

igl the 



QRBER

The patition is allowed in part, affirming the
conviatisn sf the petitionerfaccused for the §ffeaC@

under Sectian E38 35 the Act. The sefitegééj cf

imprisonmeni orderefi by She Caurts béJQwf*§§ set

aside. Further, the petitionepféésased 1s_d:d$raé t9

pay astal amamnt gf Rs.16,GGG-Q3 as fifieVaad.¢fit,éf

the said firze amount, 1r--;:'i;.__s:;aV:_e._§;..;;;'"=pa:;d tzfs'

the respondentfcsmglainantgH_",%n "-amquht G;