Karnataka High Court
Noorunnisa Begum W/O Chand Hussaini vs Gopal S/O Srinivasa Achar Bilehalli & ... on 21 August, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2604/2012
BETWEEN:
NOORUNNISA BEGUM
W/O. CHAND HUSSANI
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER
R/O. ARAB MOHALLA
HAJI COLONY, RAICHUR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVCOATE)
AND:
1. GOPAL S/O. SRINIVASA
ACHAR BILEHALLI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PUROHIT
R/O. BRAHAMNIWADI AREA
YADGIR TOWN
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEPT. OF PROSECUTION
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERESH B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S. S. ASPALLI, HCGP FOR R2)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE
2
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.09.2012 PASSED IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.16/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE,
YADGIRI, WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 11.11.2011 PASSED IN C.C.NO.96/2010 BY THE JMFC AT
YADGIRI IS CONFIRMED AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner who is accused No.3 is before this Court under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of the trial Court and the appellant Court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing the accused/petitioner to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further S.I. for a period of 4 months. Further ordered to pay Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the complainant had has no means to pay amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and also failed to show that the cheque in 3 question was issued for discharge debt. But, the appellate Court erred in confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders in so far as convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Keeping in view that the petitioner is a lady and the order of sentence of imprisonment requires modification. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The impugned order of sentence, sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is set aside. But the order of sentence insofar as payment of fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and default of clause payment of fine by the accused that she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and payment of compensation amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant is maintained. Accused is granted a month's time to deposit if balance fine amount in the trial Court. Accordingly the impugned order of sentence is modified 4 The trial Court is directed to release the amounts in deposit in favour of the complainant/respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt