Karnataka High Court
Laxman Prabhu vs Indira on 18 March, 2008
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 12.3, Q CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIGN'_'N*Q.A'13§9. 209:4 BETWEEN Sri. Laxman Prabhu, S/'0 Latefiarasimha Prafohu, Aged about 53 years, ' , R / at Appoorva Apartlnentsg' Kcdialbail, . ' Mangalore-57 5;, (By Sri. B.L.=i' A Smt. Indimy _ E D ,1 o Late. Pattabhi:'_aina-- Hobbar, Aged about 30_yea,rs, " I__ 3 --1-..1 L1....L.. .. V. R] c1tKLui:uA, 1'1UB*fl;j§}pttu,V ' "'Sur'st11kai, : Respondent
{.;3z._eS Ariga, Advocate] 4-: 4-: rm-rs This Céritxiiiial Revision Peouuu is filed mder Section ' I397 1'/vii. 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside -the order of " V'convictior1 and sentence of the I Additional Sessions Judge,
- _ ».ifMVang:a.1ore, Da.ks11L1a_ Kamiada, in Cr1.A.No. 16012004 Dated " . 04;»1G'.2OO4 and order of conviction and sentence of the III ' Additional C';.J .(Jr.D11) M'E:'111"gf,aiG1'€, akshina I4;-mnada, ..c.C.No.4_/2000 Dated 13.05.2004; 0' t A ,L'|,L.__ 1 7 __ J/xv.--up made the following:
The accused-petitio11er herein is -i'or__ ii offence punishable U/S. 138 of ihe Act ('Act' for short), he was__'se11teneei:i 'to i1.-pri._c1_n1e1_t _or a oeifiod of _thif'ee_ ruonflisg a sum of Rs.1,5G,00G;'- (1-"upees""'s11s71_-- 31:1 °r.;'_i.i'ui u_m-mu} LUWfi4u. compensation ..prot{ided5;LT[S}«.357 3i'.P.C within three months there"i'1fom';'~_Vt11.g_V..;1at; :.b1'(j judgI11ent by Judgment of convictionvandvxsentencep dated---v13;§()5.2004 passed by the 2nd Au» u .....-..-
C.C.NO. OV4'/'.fI2.OO('i,-_W11ich'~~iiis a1"fir111cd by the J"d"1ent d-"t"d ApaAssed~------«by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in Cr1.A.No.' 160/ 2004.
brief facts of the case are that the accused- herein borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/--_ (Rupees
-- thousand] from the complainant-respondent, ; _ ,W( r' .3 2 I *ds disc f L11 '- d ii-"'e""" '"° issued a cneque '91 dated 02.05.1998 for a sum of Rs.'1,':'S0,0GG/'- "S -'_t. Ex.F.2. On presentation, the said cheque was 1'etu1fnedV" an endorsement of the bankers as "i11sui1'1oienc3y__"ofAefii1itisi"_¢'eot1.._V 13.05.1998 as at Ex.P.3. i7'After« eereceieti0£Vl%%eer1kersi'o endor""1nent, eon1"Iaina.nt got iesued ' 25.05.1998 as at Ex.P.4 same .w'ae.'Vre¢eived by the petitioner (through 11137 tile postal acknowledgement to tits; eeeet egerieed as at Ex.P.5.
-the said noticed-V' _co1np1aint came to be filed U/S. 200 or.P'.:::;, foretheferfeeeeniipunishable U/S. 138 of the N.I. Act." ;j ' "
V V " ' of his case, the complainant examined as 1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 13.5. On behalf of 4-.
"-».aoeuee::i,'i~ the petitione-1' exwiined himeeh as D. .1.' . 1. On V"'V'app1;eeiation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced the parties, the Courts below held that petitioner is guilty
- . | fl(Qn.v\C£2J-Iv;
iiabsointeiiyg..11o;'gtiom1ds are made out to ciisbeiieve or discard of having committed o1':'i'ence pnnisha'p'e /'S. 138 'fine N .1. Act and sentenced him, as stated herein before.W 7 " i'
4. It is the case of the"accnseti--petit;ioner*--iiiefeinj'. v d borrowed a sum of us.3Q§@QO ,1; se.nn4e'~.,V..11e- person and he had given the eiieque in * questions; as security for the said loan that ;he fwaenot iiavhleto pay any money to the con1plainant-irespondenfti.i__X = However, the ...,. ..........-- ,. ..- ., - ____"-s.igI1ature found on the cheque. To s1.ii'z"tf**5i"""~ thf above C'_'_"i""I'1ti"i1, the petitioner _ 1"i_ot_ adduced' any rebuttal, _ cogent and convincing pevidenceV.Ai:3f4"e$::'afiiini11g the said _peI_'_so_n_ in Whose name the c11eqne'a11eged to have been issued. V .V theiihevidencei of complainant» 'espondent (P.W. i). The Courts on appreciation of - the oral and documentaxy evidence 7 _'_--.V '
-- _1 a "Aro . er perspective have arrived at a conclusion that the " maccuseu-petiti"T1* h"1'"i'1 is guilty of haviné committed the }iQ.Lyu~_n.S~ V-----
(I-n-r A offence puiiishahie U/"S. 138 o 1v.I. Act and sentenced him as stated above. I do not find any error or_ the judgments passed by the Courts below is, absolutely no reason to interfere withthe'--orderV:of_conviction 6; But however, .:sentence, it is en *».petiti"n"1' m-"t the sentence of three months imposed on excessive for the proved jg'*;:.:that.V foetitiener, since was in financial 5 ggrp111ninnnf-rH§e.pnnflR1'1f .n. a I..l.IAI.o1.l.AJ.I.a|I-hfl.EI a.-.4»: w...-.a-wax.'-.-v distress, '+2-H' ta?-'.e='-"no ?'C!='-'*1 f01''1 1.; and because of -his.Vsfiria11cia1 difiicuities, he could not " = the fL1nds------ii71' time to repay the same, he could not r.arr:an"g-einents to see that the cheque was honoured a191c1_4i't11eifefoije,}; he prayed that a lenient View may be taken L. ilI_1DI'iSOl'1I}1C11t imposed upon the petitioner isfoo 'tersh an excessive for the proved charges. Hence, this co1itft"..the considered view that a lenient view deserves" toje-be' iitiikfiii Lh" i'-"ct" and "-
regarding imposition of sentence. "oking of?' V 4- -:1ru-:11-rv-l.n+rI1-|:1A:l:1 '\1l'l'1"I':1£l:' fl . ' 11 L.LlJ.1 Lu]. pun, Wlluu |..kJl.1.!..l..L.l.-'l..l Llfi ugu -...n..ua.5u.nusu.- of conviction passed by the be1oW,.Vthe.'-sentence to imposed upon the petitioner the 1no_dif1_ed. Hence, I pass the following:
The refistoxi sopets1;i¢s11 _isVWpart1y allowed. s The Judg1nent.._p'of passed by the Courts below convicting the"p_etitio1f~.e1' herein for an offence punishable U13. 138 of the Nefietiame Insrtunents Ac. is co.-- n-ed 1Hovvepve"r, 7th.e sentence of three months siinpie iInpr_isonn1ent V -V impo'sed--':upo':11 the petitioner herein is set aside and to pay u"'V.'s.eon1pensstion of Rs. 1,50,000/- is also set aside and in lieu ~ the fie ti on .1' is 2.6- t 11 " but of the iine vs.' 1.: .. -..-. ----- .. wfifiw ed to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,0(_)0_/-. "'1ount, if rec v red, -21 sure of Rs.1,65,GGO,'- . . ' (9L_Q.Lu'L¢J--°---"*-
{Rupees one 1a'K'n sixty five thousallci only) shaii 'De_'--.__paid to the complainant-respondent. In default gf_"-fiasrfxaent of fine, petitioner shall undergo simple implieolainetxf 'a._ period of one year. The fine H; -I I Dd "' TIHJNAI' J LLLJU