Karnataka High Court
Venkatsh Pai vs Cci Ltd For The on 4 February, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.987 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
VENKATSH PAI
S/O GOVINDA PAI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PROPRITER
NEW DHANYA LOTTERY AGENCY
NO.41/2422, PARAMARA ROAD
ERN AKULAM NORTH
KOCHI - 682 018. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CCI LTD
FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
OF INDIA LTD.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
TILE FACTORY ROAD
MANIPAL - 576 103
REP BY ITS LAW OFFICER
MISS U SARASWATHI NAYAK. ...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2012 PASSED BY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C., UDUPI, IN CRL.A.NO.212/2008,
THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 31.10.2008 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE, (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, UDUPI, IN C.C.NO.3561/2003.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused challenging the judgment dated 23.7.2012 made in Crl.A.No.212/2008 on the file of Fast Track Court at Udupi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the cheques were issued to the complainant as a security and in spite of marking the letter dated 12.2.1999 as Ex.D-1, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court erred in not accepting the case of the petitioner-accused. He also submits that there is a arbitration clause. Under such circumstances, respondent-complainant erred in presenting the cheques and filing a complaint without resorting to arbitration clause.
3. When the matter was listed before this Court on 17.10.2012, petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- with the trial Court and thereafter to move the matter for further orders. But the petitioner has not 3 deposited the said amount but has filed a Memo along with a Demand Draft dated 28.1.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Registrar General, High Court, Bangalore.
4. I have perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. There is no good ground to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below.
5. In the result, petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Registry is directed to present the Demand Draft for Rs.2,00,000/- for realisation and transmit the amount to the trial Court to release the same in favour of respondent- complainant.
4
Petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 50% of the balance amount within two months and the remaining amount within four months from today, with the trial Court.
6. In view of disposal of revision petition, I.A.1/2012 for suspension of sentence does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KM