Rajesh Bagge vs Dcm Financial Services Limited on 10 September, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rajesh Bagge vs Dcm Financial Services Limited on 10 September, 2014

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                              1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.161 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

Rajesh Bagge,
Son of Late Mahabeer Singh,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.131,
D. Pocket, C. Siddharth Extension,
New Delhi - 24.
                                      ...PETITIONER

(By Shri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Advocate)

AND:

D.C.M. Financial Services Limited,
No.122, Margosa Road,
Bangalore - 560 003,
Represented by P.Vijay Kumar,
Officer and Power of Attorney Holder.

                                     ...RESPONDENT

                            *****
                                2




      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set
aside the order dated 10.10.2008 in Criminal Appeal
No.78/2007 of 36th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, convicting the petitioner and acquit the petitioner.

      This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:

                          ORDER

None appears for the petitioner. The present petition is filed in the year 2009. Since inception, the matter stands only at the stage of serving notice on the respondent in spite of innumerable adjournments and there is no progress. Even today, the Counsel remains absent.

2. It is seen that the petitioner was the accused before the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity). The matter having been contested, the trial court had convicted the petitioner to imprisonment for a period of six months and imposed a fine of Rs.2,50,000/-. The same having been challenged in appeal, the appellate court 3 has set aside the imposition of sentence of imprisonment and has affirmed the fine imposed, after having addressed the several grounds urged. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present petition.

There being concurrent findings, there is hardly scope for interference in revision and the grounds urged in the present petition did not indicate any cardinal error committed by the court below, on the other hand, they are mere repetition of the grounds raised in the appeal. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. In any event, the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE nv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court