W' COURT OF KAW1A'W<fi Hifiwi COURT OF KARNAVAKA HIGH CCKPRT 0? KARNATAKA EEG?-i CC so um: I mwgyagfai mi' nmmmflwxflfi HEGH IN 1113 HIGH CD32? OE' XARNITRIO'-i, narzn rams was 01" Bar or JULY, 2ooa§Cf BEFORE um Hownxaz: rm. J?}5'I'IC;?S....mSU'EniiF;SI'?I'v'"4It3".VV'.';a:'V.'7iI. Cx:1.RP Ht: 673 at :a;s:é*a BETWEEN 1 sum H RETIRED I-mm 2;Aw.m I,.§ mnnaann nummcamnv ;mBIi;'£: % nmm1ea:~%.% .3.;IIRA'_1}.'__m'._S'§';"2£%'..':'.C'.!f_.» . .. . m-rxrrcmn (By Sizi ,9 --ADVJ ...........w...... ;.~_V « 1*.s'n1 sac. gn;:.. , Am mama/o.rrm3I~mJ:L.I * _ vm.:9m,nmm.emmw HCIELI, mmx, 'n.n.z~rc-rmcax RURAL nzsrrnxcr. ... REPml% THIS (E!.L.l?..P. IS FILE!) DRE SECIIGV 682 V. O!' CR..E'.C. W1"fi'I A P3331 T TEIE ORDER E33530 BY THE DISTRSZT 8: flfiiffifi JUDGE; BAI~FfiI£I«Cil3 RIIRAL DISTRICT, E IN l|I\ul'Ii inwr-4 3H COUR? OF KARNA'¥I5;K& HIGH CF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? OF Kfi§NA"i"AKA HQGH COURI KM' KAKNAN-uua naun uuun: ur I\Fn.l'\a\:r9.:r-nu-u CRL.R.P.NU.121/20¢? ON 31.3.2GOB SET ASIDE 'IT-I3 ORDER OF 'J.'HE TRIALL GOUR'1'.._ 'BS' caurxanxws was onnzn or was TRIAL ccgrfvnngn SECTION 45(8) 0! 'If!!! IPC. 'E1113 revision pctitian --« acfzziaion, this day the;"""¢c~u;:i:é _:m_a :ie3 ~i:hai- fol ltminq: : The trial dated 3.10.2007
refezxaé” the 3¢h§§ué§ flfior hand
writirxg cxpgzfi called in
quest ion before that
R¢viaio12ai x’L:’».’t§25″3?1ALt ” Iuwisional Court
conaiflgtiéw V’ “pagan! by the trial
caurt thfi-__ i.1:” a very cryptic order. no
§_.l’.’0 “iwaigned to zafer the cheque ta
export and found that the
:fiaqEi:éer A re-consideration and runandad
the’ zrufitthr to the trial court to dispose of
A §§1i6″~«_app1ication after hunting both the sides.
2. Luarned counsel fur the petitioner
submits that thsro was no reason to: tho
learned. Sessions Judge to interfere with 1:11:
91:69.: of the trial court. In under to prove:
J’;-
Wm mwmwa aw nmmwawmfiémwm. £'”m;.%«2°r=1 U?’ mmmmm Hi$H Cfiiik? O? §{.&RMfiL”¥’lM€& Mififl CQHQY OF W~”%.¥%Ni3{?AKA %”-‘W;’.§§W§ CQUWE WW §{ik%NfleI§”fia§{fia HEQEH $0
the offence punishable under: Ska. 138 of the
Negsatiable Instrument Act. The comp1ain.a11*.:j”*a¢a.a
required to prove his signature an
alas. Since there :13 at dispute fig!
the signature and on the
trial judge has x:ca1’£a::z:_ed__ thfi’-Agifima
writing expart. The oxfiéf Of théjtéiéi éourt
is just and proper been
int erfe red by V ‘the 1V
3. Lefiifiéfi gigsifihs #§S§a fig: tound that
the aiigaifined any reason
for the hand writing
expe.r1u:”‘.’ “!.?ie” that is issued by
tha:»Se§siEnn#’ ‘Jfidgé is far ssraczansidaration ox:
. ‘ “t.1;ia” I no harm is cauaad to the
both the parties are given
1ih§zty~£@ia;gue the matter. I do not find
“tutti: in the matter. Accordjngly, the
petition is dismissed.
p6§*