Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh Kallappa Makavi S/O Kallappa ... vs Madan Bindurao Desai on 23 June, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 130 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 246, 2009 (2) ABR (NOC) 282 (KAR.), 2009 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 403 (KAR.), 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 246, 2009 CRI. L. J. 224, 2009 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 403 (KAR), 2008 (6) AIR KANT HCR 246, (2009) 1 CRIMES 646, (2009) 75 ALLINDCAS 761 (KAR), (2009) 2 CIVLJ 436, (2009) 2 CURCRIR 14, (2008) 6 KANT LJ 442, (2009) 2 BANKCAS 603, (2008) 4 ICC 763, (2009) 4 BANKCAS 571, (2009) 1 NIJ 221, (2009) 2 BANKCLR 564, 2009 (3) ALLMR (JS) 14, 2009 (65) ACC (SOC) 10 (KAR)
I uulm-
IN THE HIGH Comm' 0;? KARNATAKA, BANoA1;o:eg
DATED THIS THE .:z3"oAY op' JUNE;
BEFOREW-' M:tt %t
THE HoN'13Lr3 MR. Jusmtia' $2.5; _k
CRIMINAL REVISION 15ii?ift*1rIo1~mo;3.o9§oto;§;go:05 A L'
BETWEEN L M A
Sri.Surcsh Kallappa '
3/0 Kauappa Mankavizii... .
Aged about 6.0 years,
R/of 107, Road, A 1.
Belgaum. . t
: Petitioner
(By SE1, M/t Advocates)
AND:
Bmdtnéio Dosai,
V' -.3'/L: iiatknown tovtfie petitioner,
A_'goz_;1 3.1_)c1;t._ 55_years,
' -.I"<,1¢o Dssai '\"313aIfE1bcz's,
1{0Pi3ika1- Hubli.
é 2. Sttatévtof ataka by its
" fiéosecutor.
: Respondents
% by Sri.R.B.DeshpaI"1de, Advocate, R-2 by Sri.Ramesh
" Kumar, HCGP)
s2(_&.btC2L:---H-~
3:9'?! """ chfifilue, even then. the
has failed to prosecute A»-2 and
V _ "gist A-2 en the ground that he was sufiering
psrslysis. It is to be noted at this stage that the
i under Section 138 of the N.I Act can be
as against 3 person whe has sigxed the cheque
V A. and if it is a cheque of a joint account signed by two
3.The petitioner] accused contends that the
in question was not issued tewards the '
liability of A-1 firm or the persona; ~
petitioner herein. The respondent]
individually prosecute the __ a§ {;1i1§:~,\,
petitioner/A-3, as petitiVenei:,"A:..E3_:'-- is eriiy-..a.--E sleeping
partner and it is 01113; were active
partners respqnsiiziie xiiusiness of M/s
Dharmashreei responsible for the
1iabi1ity:v'it$fmt;ne: contended that A-2
and A-4: complainant has issued a
cheque .sig1ed theipetitioner/accused herein. A-2 also
,€?«Qi--¥\.o.;f"'"~
persons, the complainant can choose and either proceed
against both the signatories or proceed against v(V)I?'|,:.(§"!.)I' the
signatories. The cemplainant wnnot be to
proceed against both the signatories"-. V' V
contention of the petitioner/aceusedtéthétt "pxfosecig-fjo2:1t as ''
against the pefitio11er/ accused ale'r:e"'is
does not hold any water. get that the
petitioner] accused The very fact
that the petitienerf the cheque
would was also an
active day to day afilairs of the
accused the contention of the
petitionel'/'afiicusedtét was a sleeping partner of the
_ A. flrrg hf "no.1_1eas'afl to the petitioner/accused. The
'fit1v1*'t.11(f:X'._V4V(3():V1'h3:t3i1tI'i0I1 of the petitioner] accused that the
has not averted in the complaint
petitioner] was in chaxge of the
A ":tf";A§1V.sf1z3gement of and was responsible for the day to day
V' of accused No.1 firm, is also of no help to the
10
interference in the present revision petition. Henee, the
following: V '
ORDER
The revision petition is "
conviction of the pefitienerl "
punishable under Section "of NJ; eel;
The sentence for the said in lieu the petitioner aee}1s*ee§:V:-.is a fine of Rs.2,_50,000/- months. Out of the fme - is ordered to be paid to the as compensation.
sai-
Iudge