Sri N Rajan vs Sri M Neelakanta Naidu on 4 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri N Rajan vs Sri M Neelakanta Naidu on 4 March, 2011

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARN»;eaf.:g;<;:.'%"é',é§N'C:1;;:;C:i;3, 

 W THE %*§o%%»'okrwcwsoia 

THE HOMBLE MR.3uST1<fEV.%:: R.ka3M'A£§A_S$%f2i§%i'Y'V'
CRIMINAL REVISVLON PEfm":'LaN"-No.1i'3--::r.QE'§2008

BETWEEN:

SR1 N RAJ/SN 

AUTHORIZED SIF3f\iATOR;Y..., _ 

SAURABH AIRVCQN---DITIf3NER§-2 _ . ._ 
No.25; 'Dz IR      
RAJAJZNACSAR;«.8/¥x£\£é3AL€3aR_E.~~.._  ' ' »

ALSO AT; Ne%,sa;'~L3%©;k 1 WAEN ROAD
MAHx:;VLAK'5'i?s.,w2f:PURA'  " 
WEST- OF,_CHOF§D--«vRC3vAD'«, 
3AN<3A_;.0aE.' .    

(BY sM7',.V_ME%LAN.t_C 3E3As,:.T:x:N, ADV FGR
M/S'-TOMY SEB;'§STlﬁ£N ASSTS, ADVS)

 PETITIONER

mg; * é  
S"RI"Ma_NEE~LAKANT;iX"'NAEDU

. 'SIG GANG.AM.§\ NAIDU
 L *AGED";!xBC!UT_ 5:2 YEARS
 . Fa-KAT E~£fJ"":%;_81»,}'¥'~"'"* 'D' M/'3\I§\é RGAS
'WEST <3?' 'C§~iCiRD ROAB

M;'=\_HAE._J1&'%~iSH MIR} RAM
BAF\é'3AE,VGREg  RESPONDENT

'A (sagji 3,§;:wTHs.M R NANJUNEA Gawm & SA}, LA%<§HMI§'<§ARA'{AN.5,, ﬁsﬂk/S FGR MKS. M R §'§A§'xiJL§§\§§A GQWQQ AESTS, ASVS} ix.) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS mes UNDER SECTIQN 40: CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COI\I'v'_1CTION AND SENTENCE amen 25.4.0? PASSED BY THE XVIII zacmm St ><>< ASCI, BANGALORE cm' IN c:.<;:.NoI4657;'G5_"««.._zx:\;:> CONFIRMED as THE ORDER DATED 2.9.08 eAs3ED<,.eY"mE- (fI"E""rf FAST TRACK qsessrems) JUDGE, BANGALORE {ZI_"_1'\f'._ (FT'C§5I):"I._¥$I' CRL.A.NO.5?'2/O7.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PEIIHIIUPI 1:: <:<34!*~I*_iA:':x:':3 emeeée Fzwm. HEARING THIS BAY, THE cove: Mme me' E<3IIL:3i;f;z:__Ixs:;v;.. This Crimmaf Revision isV"f'1*i--¢>,:.2C:5_ Section 401 of Cr.P.C. prayieg.;j":*~t_o ceifwxgctien and sentence datedA._25.OéIA.,2O}CfZ. XVIII ACMM & ><>< AscJ.,_ InF':fI§':;,......}§G'456?/2005 and confirmed: e::;;.d'9.2oo8 passed by the City Bangaiore City (FTC--~\/I) in The""bri€f.{'acts ef the case is as foilows:

:v'ae"c:;:_se:§ had borrowed a loan of Rs.S,OO,I€IO(}/~ 'freed cﬁeﬁwpiainant as short term hand Ioan fer émrun.ed"E=a:te4'business eurposeg agreeing to repay the same 2 iwiIthIn Ha peried ef three months, Tczwards discharge of fear: ameuet, the accused issued five Céxeques eertaméng if:/'(X ") ) different dates for Rs.1,00,0C%O/~« each for Rs.5,.OO,C}OC}/--- alongwéth a letter complainant shdwing the deieiis:...eédjf'f;::i§.ec;-L£e»~'~.edewi:eri 14.09.2004. Amdng theméwe cheqdes present case ie, cheque bed'LfidQ 088605 dated 1109,2004 dreefrfr. dn'_VAVK§d§'i'etei.§:et«.State'ﬁdedperative Bank Ltd", Gokuia Branch;7Beriga}.dre»._fo{ Rs.1,0G!OOO/--

each in tote}, favour cf the Complainant __When the complainant presented encashment, the same Came:'r._f;o'~ an endorsement "no such aceount«"';'--__'_4T?}eV'ed'i"dp»!e{'i':}.eet issued §ega% notice, but the ac§;;;1s'ed. did "*ndtVV'pa\Vk the cheque amount. Hence, the Cod.piéa§:ha_h'E._.presented the compﬁaint. ,V"'7§he Triai Court after the tria§, convicted the 'ae<'::ised' effence punishabée under Sectide 138 of Ind"ie.n:7£?eVnxa¥ Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of AAR'e;.2',é{i,0OG/-- in defauit of payment df fine td undergo AA's§E"deie imeréednment fer eéx mdnthe; Feeiieg aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeai. The Appeiiate Court Confirmed the order ef the Triai Ceurt._."~._:E"~e'eiivrig aggrieved by the same, the accused has Criminai Revision Petition.

4. I have heard the , revision petitioner as weii--.._a's~i._%iearhe_d'Ce"i;riseI""fo'r the resperident,

5. Learned "'t~i§.§A~§.I'V/'rV've'§kisien petitioner confines 'extent of the iegaiity of sentence igrounds. She submits that :.;§ee_V he could not repay the amount..__ He iswfiha'r"iei_ai.i_§}"'urisound as on this date. The' «tr_a_r1saetion was of the year 2004. The ';r:E*2eqe.e"~ias*eij:i_r"it is Rs.2,{)i'),O{)O/~. There was ﬁnariciai "iiiffi'cu.it\,i-7;»ridu'iess ea' business suffered by the revision petitirieerg Taking into eerrsirieratien of aii these aspects, view, it is exeedient that the firie armurzt ef // , 5 «é 533 w 35; .:§§;

/WW*N~N\ Rs.2,60,0QO/~ be reduced te{\Es.1,30,000/-f. Accordingly; gggifg 33:?

fine amount of Rs.2,60,0G0/~ is reduced toiRs.1,30,.G5_?j{. i L:

With these observations; this Crim¥rj¢a"§"'"ReQi_ssg:ﬁ~.H eetitéon is disposed of. 5 3g . 3 f/Me»,.,._",_,4»'m_w_:_.»MN__ﬁ\." 5 es4,2e,0@Q;é If the fine amount is reaiised, s.'t::-sa_IH;te paid to the complainant andv'Rs._,;2;O(5C-3?'sha£%t.'b'ei_e:aiVd the State.

At this stage,' for the revision petitioner submits the.tV--t§'\1:;'» be granted to deposit.tH.e Ceunsei for the erant two months time.

Hence; . is granted to the revéséorr petitéortewrtot ﬁne amount. _;"The ertzotfhtt, which is in deposit befere the "mat 'Ctﬁ:rt;;"".t:A;3«§:;:e.£late Court or befere this Court, shalt be ._v~3~§'t_h.t:§é*a§Jv.:1_ tégtiiwe eemptainant. Séf§ EEEBGE _----tV>%<§§;»¥f,a :5 55 esee::z;.;sg: e 'if 5 €'2::;:a ;' aeeeg V' =_$§3§"%"§{ 3*;

:3 ii?

13., ;'*~.gyw.M~»«em.W~--§ Q: Q :4 3'?

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court