B. Nagaraj S/O Bhangyappa vs Munianjinappa S/O Chikkanna on 6 September, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B. Nagaraj S/O Bhangyappa vs Munianjinappa S/O Chikkanna on 6 September, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

1
il\¥ THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED TEES THE GT" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.Jl}STlCE SUBHASH B.ADI.._'  j

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION Ivo.99o/atria'   "' 

BETWEEN:   

B.Nagaraj

S/ o Bhangrappa

Aged about 45 years

R/at, Srushti Nilaya

Behind Government Hospit

Budigere Village V  

Channaraypatna Hobii '

Devanahalli Taluk      

Bengaluru Rural Dis_triet..  _    '    PE'I'ITIONER

(By Sri.Chandrap_ipa "    " 

Munianjinappa V
S/o Chilckanha " _ _ '
Aged about 35 years _ 

 IR/at Cvangaxzara Village

'C«hann.a'ray-apattana Hobiiy

I A ' ~ .Devanahalli .'i'aliI2{

Eerigal"L.r1i"'!?§i1ral,_iZ)istrict. ., RESPONDENT

A Tliis Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order dt."ivf)'_fO1.201O passed by the P.O. F"I'C--I, Bengaluru (R) V' District, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.51/09 and confirming the judgement and order dt.1«<i.07.09 passed by the OJ. (Jr.Dn.) & ..oJMFV'C.,'ADevanaha1li in C.C.No.668/06. This Revision petition coming on for orders this day. the :."$oI.1rt made the following:

0 R D E R Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned Counsel has filed vakalath for respondent.

2. Petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments V' amount of Rs.10,000/~ and Kl compensation amount. The said judgme'nt'l of°~eonvictien*~..is'l-:

conﬁrmed in Criminal Appeal No.i3_v'1';{2009;v- _ V _

3. Today, a joint memo has bHeen:_fi3.ed si.gn--ed_'bypvboth the Counsel and their respectiv_e."pa1.ftie_§s stating that the complainant .the'_'entireHamount of compensation. Learned Counsel £o:"tr;ig2..§'e~+._i:'t1or:'er submits that, Rs.29,000/-- has b6?*1, d6I3o9i.ted....before":the trial court, out of which it to be 'Vappropriated towards ﬁne amount and compensation. He has produced the ' C' receiptfor Pldeposited so.

AA Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that "the. en.1Eir'e compensation amount is received by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, Rs.19,000/--, which is ,-:$w°"

deposited before the trial court be directed to be refunded to the accused.

5. In View of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner --- accused and the respo11L'!e'nt_d":----_ complainant that the entire compensation '_ainou1'n§:'*--.,oi5.._j' . Rs.95,000/-- has been paid to the con1p1ainar1f."Vpefitioner. is-._ dd"

entitled for refund of Rs.19,000/~, the trial court and Rs.1O,0OO/-»'VI1'as beenddepositétixqwaardsb ﬁne amount. _ Accordingly, the peiition isdlallowednli'-._«The judgvmeni in C.C.No.666/2006 dated 14thHJg:1y'2oo9 file of J.M.F.C., Devanahaili cronﬁrrnefcii-.:ir1._Cfin'i1na}'Appeal No.51/ 2009 on the file of Sessions Bangaiore Rural District, _ Bangaioirev, s.tands"satisﬁed.

salg Tifdge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court