Karnataka High Court
Anand Krishna Shetty vs Suprabhata Co-Operative Society Ltd., on 21 June, 2011
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DEHARWA DO. DATED THIS THE 215 DAY OF JUNE, 20tT." BEFORE a THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. GOVINDAK: AS U ULL CRL.R.P.No. 2012/2074 1. Between: Anand krishna shetty, Aged about 50 years, R/o kasabakeni, ankola, Taluk: Ankola, Dist: Uttara Kannada. . Petitioner (By Sri dus. Shetty vy, 'Adi ocate) And: 1. Supraphate "Credit fo-Cperanve Society Ltd., oy Ankola, repr esented, by its' Authorised 'person, SB. Pratapkumar, Ankola, - Dist: Uttara Kannaca. 2. The State cf Karnataka Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Benen "Dh arwac . Respondents
{By Sri, Manohar V Naik, adv. for Ri.
Sri.Vinayak S Kulkarni, HCGP for R2) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed u/s 307 R/w 401 q of Cr.P.C seeking that the order of conviction and sentence aed dated 27.03.2010 passed by the JMFC, Ankola in C.C.NO.591/2005 and confirmed by the Judgement dated 23.10.2010 passed by the District and Ses ssions Judge. Uviare Kannada, Karwar, in Crl.A.No.60/2010 be set aside. Te This petition coming on for ad missic ne this, can, the' Court made the following:
The learned advocate for the revision petitioner | 'is heard. The respondent No.1 is. a _ So-sperative Society and respondent No.2 is the State, wad = 2 Facts? ne cessary for. cotisideration of the revision petition are | as onder... | The scase ol sp apne is that the accused has approached "the. 'compli nant and obtained a loan of Rs. 1°10: G00 j2fo i. 'the purpose of his business on 25.3. 2004 and promised to repay the loan. On demand, the accused jssued a cheque for Rs.1,35,000/- drawn on Canara District «Cefitral Co-operative Bank, Ankola. The said cheque Is _ presented, it returned unpaid. So, the complainant conten a that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Nui. Act.
3. The presence of the accused is secured. ~PWSOL, and 2 are examined. The accused a noe chosen' to enter the witness box. The Learned Mz agistrate bs sieved: the case vl -
the complainant, convicted the acctived. The "conviction is challenged in Criminal Appeal No. a 10/2010 or the fil file of the District and Sessions Judge, 'Uttara Kannada, Karwar. The learned District Judge has dismissed 1 the appeal,
4. The | learned: Pd. advocate Sri JS.Shetty, for the petitioner submits that according to the complainant, the complainant has adv: aniced iben of Rs.1,10,000/- and he has 1,25,000/-. So, there is a duty cast issued a eheque for Rsv upori.the responctent No.1 - Society, to provide best evidence. 1 é The eubmissions would probabilise issuance of cheque is admitted. All the contentions raised by the learned _advocate for the accused could have been entertained, if the aceu ised has entered the witness box, explained why he has
6. Learned advocate Sri J.S. Shetty fer the revision petitioner further submit that the accused is a guararitor.for the transaction. So, he may be given three montirs time io™ pay the said sum, if the said money is not paid, he is ready to'. sulfer the sentence imposed by the court below if he pays the money within three months, the senténce of imprisonment be made as optional.
7. Submission of the..advocate for the petitioner is accepted. If the accused pays the sum éf Rs.1,35,000/- within three morths «from this. day, he need not. suffer imprisonment. On failure to-pav the said sum within three months, the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate holds good wittiout any further clarification from the Court. af wf JUDGE py*