Karnataka High Court
Uttamchand Jain vs Basanth Kumar Patil on 27 June, 2008
R.Shxu_fDa.
CI'i.R.P.NO. 1070/2004.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGA;QR..§§'e._V_
DATED rms THE 27TH my or JUNE 2093" 5;: ;. u
BEFORE
THE i-iON'BLE MRJUSTKCE A,,s.1éA::ii§{Ai5;ji§E _v , 1:'
cru:2.1=>. No.r:07o/2004
BETWEEN: V
Sriflttamchand Jain,
Proprietor,
Top Films, -.
Halladakere, '--_
Mysore _. PETITIONEER
$Iar;a._ Jxcivoca te)
AND: .. b . ,
Sri.Basanth K1}1nfi:a.r Paitil, ,
Proprietor, Basanfiz'?-i.,ctu,rés,., --- '
6&1 Cross, x."xandhir1aga._r,, "
Bangalore, ,_ M V =
Rep. by GPA I*i'01der.,
~ : RESPCPNDENT
{I§é3pondent served and unrepresented}
Revision Petition is filed under sections
39?.' rcadwit'hf:4{?'1 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated
4.5.f.2*f}O2v_v'paeSed by the XII ACMM Bangaiore, in CC
f No.283€r6";51999 and the order dated 23.4.2004 passed by the
'E?'.{)., Fastfirack Court--VIII, Bangaiore, in C1'1.A.N0.295/ 2002.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
aekmiésion, this day, the Court made the following;
Cri.R.P.NO.107{)/2004.
ORBER.
Though the records of the lower C0111'; vv7.e97e';1_V1ot
received, the counsel for the petitioner submitted 9
mcords may be dispensed with and the ..
on the available records.
2. The petitioner has ehaflengetirhis for 9
ofienee under Section 138 of "$5.1. Aetoii' lieid by V
the Additional Civil .Ji1d_ge, g;;;:o}e._ and i iieioniifixmed in
Cri.A.No.295/ 2002 by the 'jBanga1one.
3. of this petition
are as ._
profiiietor of Top Fihns and a
complaitlt eaine 'fay the respondent, who is the
propnletor of and it is alleged by the it i' . ;jcsip.onci'ent" the petitioner had undertaken the film and 'for that reason avaiied of the of Rs.1,00,000--00 from the complainant i.e., the {espondent herein. The petitioner issued the cheque i 29.3.1999 drawn. on DCC Bank Limited towards the Crl.R.P.NO.10'70/2004.
repayment of the financial assistance avaiied of. Thesaid cheque was presented on 4. 10.199? and it was and returned with an endorsement of 3Lnsu1'ficien't.'funds;""
respondent again presented the on age.' assurance of the petitioner that _ ieaiised and again on pxesentatjozt, cheque'-.3vasV"1'c:tLi:rned V with an endorseinent, of Letter, the compiainant issued 2998 and despite the notice, as his amount' the complaint Court requesting to for the cfience under Section E38 the trial, the complainant examined»..1timseIf in his evidence got marked the ';doc1;meni:e-,A ;E:es.F;'.1 to P10. The statement of the 'accVi1seei"[§;»edTfi'1;ioner nerein was Iecorded uader Section 313 tia.-setaken the defence of total denia} and act Ad lead any evidence in his defence. On appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court V."V'.Ae*on\%ig:ted the pefifioner fer the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordered to pay the fine of Rs.2,00,€)O0~90 in < Crl.R.P.NO. 107.0/2004.
,4- 'h default to undergo SJ. for one year. conviction and sentence, the petitioner apfsroaeheti V' Sessions Court in Cri.A.No.295/ came to be éismissed on merits. by. eoni)§et.ioVn~.u and confirmation, the petitioneniaas in revision.
4. I have heard for the petitioner and the responriehi _
5. 1'3'. learned counsel for the assistance was availed and the eny cheque in favour of the zespoadent'----.__ a:oe?L'«..t?ze1efo1e, he submitted that the V. the htioutftse below are iiiegai and perverse. ' vhVijs.Vi.te1evant to note that the petitioner has hthtxhoheque at Ex. 13.2 and the oopy of the notice at Ex.P.S and Exs.P.6 to R8 are the postal documents. Though V.'-Vot%,1e.4'petifioner has issued the reply to the notice as per V' Ex.P.9, it is the observation of the Courts below that in the reply, the petitioner though stated that there was no v< CI'1.R.P.N0. 1070/ 2004.
..5.. 'd transaction, he has not assigned any reasons"-as issued the cheque. In that vievs:f6f' "'cb.e ixexatftejifidiv Courts below rejected the contention A' ordered the conviction pefificneg "the: fine V of Rs2,00,000«-:00. It is zc1eva11tVVV::te.fiote t1fiéit'vt13.e..vv1§;*efitioner did not enter the * hex' there is no matefial placed' overcome the evidence the Trial Court.
There _ Court below and the petitioisger such gonads to prove that he has Adfiofzd assistance. in the camgmstancés;-» ,t_11'eV"fid'di1.1gs of the Courts below that the he.d¢_2issuedmi«:he cheque for Rs.1,0(),O00«0O towards assistance stands proved.
counsei for the petitioner submits that the 'A x V' petiticneie is a poor man and he has been facing the litigation
-- fer the last more than eight years and his financial condition T " 'asd worst. In the circumstances, he submits that the fine amount may be reduced to the Taking into consideration the submission made and the circumstances