Crl. R. P. NO. 1855/ 2906
-3-
EN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA'LU"R'E[ A'
DATED THIS THE 39TH DAY OF' JUNE i" '
BEFORE _ V' V'
THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE}XiS.:P1k~fi§}§H;APIfR!§'i{
Cr1.R.P.NC',ii_1'8-.55 éeo__§_ .
BETWEEN: ii i i'
Sri. V. Narayana,
8/ cxvenkataiah,
Aged about 41 years,'
C/o.VenkatasWa1ny,_' ' : - _ ~
Telephone Cable 2: A V
Ist Cross, 'f'hya_ga1'-ajaiilpicrny,' ' 4' V
Nanjangud Town. :RESPONDENT
""" Advocate) AND:
Sri. K. Lakshxriinafa3{aiia_,.iii ” i
S/o.Lat¢_.Cv3opaiachar,V _ ‘
Aged ah-but 60 yea1’sA,._
” =D,No…g3o5,/.i18 15, Makkmaiioad,
N3njVangud’Tcwn.« : RESPONDENT
V’ ” ” ii(If~35.fi.1Sri.T.S.Satish Associates, Advs. }
A ffhis is filed under sections 39?’ readwith 401 Cr.P.C.
_ ‘ praying’ i;oi .se:i’. aside the judgment passed in C.C.No.938;’2004
I,.2006′<in the file of the Add}. cg. (Jr.Dn.} 85 JMFC, Nanjangud
_V a:;;1v.;_1ié";udg1nen: paaaed in Cr1.A.No.26/2006 on the file of the 90.,
_ QPPC;-1v,iiMysore, dt.5.8.2006.
This Cr1.R.P. coming on for admission, this day, the Court made
i “the foliowing:
Crl.R.P.NO.1855l’2006
-3-
the complaint before the Trial Court under
for taking action against the petitioner for the.
Sections 133 and :42 of the NJ. Act.
3. During the tria}, the’i.co:;i§3]aii1ant.wérsAe;_{amin:ed as-L’
PW .1 and in his evidence, the P5 were
marked. The petitioner and the accused
examined DWS. 1 a£’.d 2 The statement
of the 13 Cr.P.C. He took
the eiefence of the material on
record, ‘rhe petitioner for the offence
under SecAtiQ;_t1i38’of and ordered to undergo SJ. for
a of one for the oifience under Section 138 of the NJ.
iifigeté oedema to compensation of Rs.4{),0€)0–O0 and
‘ox; compensation to undergo SI. for a period of
three .__iiiont,hs;’ Figgneved by the conviction and sentence, the
ii”-,.oipetitionervvaiiaproacheci the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.26/2006
said appeal came to be dismissed on merits. Aggrieved
the convicszion and confirmation, the petitioner has
V V V” _ ii ‘approached this Court by way of revision. g-‘X/’A
LI -e-»_e
for the pfienee tjn<ieer'$ection 138 of the NJ. Act.
2 towards t};e're§ae§rment of the said amount and the cheque was
-. cheque has been produced by the respondent at
V’ Fwhich is dated 5.7.2004. Though there appears to be
correction, the evidence of D\V.2 reveais that mere
Crl.R.P.N{I).}855igO06
,4-
4. I have heard the ieamed counsel for the petitiozier and
aiso the nespondent. H t
5. As could be seen fiom the records, it
the petifiouer that he had taken a 1e§1Ii”oi* u b
that the said amount was pajdend a
disadvantage of the blank viesueei as eat the’
time of avaiiing the loan of Rs.{§,-(}(u1V:GLe~0(}~~..1f3fas. ‘filled.-i1::§the blank
cheque and presented Bank. It is his
submission that mete and in the
piace of moot}; ate: ; as 7 and in the
ci1t:umstaVv1__1(;ee,’~..VZtieja; ” is the evidence of
manipuléttion and therefore, he requested the
‘l’na’ l «toeccept and to acquit mm’ of the charge
of the evidence of PW.1 ie, the
that he paid an amount of Rs.3(},O{}0~«()G
Cr1.R.P.NO. 38551 2006
-5-
correction of the cheque does not imply any manipu_Eatio;i’~and
even in case if a blank cheque is issueti, the person§V_WhoV.’1feeeiv_est_V
the cheque is entitled to mention the ciste. Mezeiy. t3_ist’v .
there was some correction, no i11ferenceAA’beV”‘dr€s5W:z_t ‘that
there was manipuiation of the d’oc__’;1mefit.._ ;
the presentation of the cheque linsufficient
funds, the respondent :«t_1oVtz:iL*e’at with the
averment that he had advatteeti ._f'<s.30,000~0O and
that the cheque' of the said loan.
Despite the the petitioner did not
reply xfffie not’t1Vss1;V’gne:i reasons as to Why he
was not tihle fi)x.P.3. Ex.P.¢i» is the envelope
and Ex_._P.5 the VposAtablV’*aibeknowledgement which beam the
of the e-r.«e’2:. So the perusal of these documents
.V’WotV:V1&’V]ead:’toV”t1te—only inference that the contents of the notice
Ex.’P..3′”\3vet’e by the petitioner and it is because of this
’17easo11″t1.1st…]3.e’did not Iepiy the notice. This inference cirawn on
‘tine’ ‘basisV’ of these documents supports the version of the
C.’res’po’11tient herein as regards his claim of R::~1.3(},OOO-O0 and
” the cheque of Rs.3G,00O-O0 towaxtls repayment of the
.4 A. loan amount. The Txial Court and also the Fixst Appellate Court
3./’A
Cr}. R. P. NO. i855f2006
-6-
taking into consideration the available evidence appIeveieted.._the
same in a proper way and arrived at a right
convict the petitioner. The finding of feet arris;e<lv-
Court cannot be disturbed by the mifjsioino}. thezde
are iliegalities or errors apparent on me.f§ee of '.1 ,
revision petitioner is not at all stlovst ground to
Warrant the interference.' R dd
7. As regards the isivvtideivddeizbmission of the
learned cou11seI;’for”:t};f’te to pay Rs.30,00€}-
00 towards additional amount of
‘diheoomperidséfton as per the order of the
Trial dd fi’he that the petitioner is a poor
man thofighv.pagj.’V._a§d1’dledddVa meager amount, has EILOW to gay
circumstances, he submits that the
Vdd-sentehoe of may be waived and in default of the
payzoezit “amount of compensafion of Rs.40,000–(}O,
‘defauit of imprisonment may be awarded. So takrmg
x V’ eopsidetation the circumstances in which the petitioner has
It and also the fact that he has to pay Rs.40,000–0O/to