Karnataka High Court
Nadeem Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 March, 2013
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE.K.SREEDHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.868/2013
BETWEEN:
NADEEM AHMED
@ MOHAMMED AMEER KHAN
S/O JALEEL KHAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
VIDYANAGAR 'B' BLOCK
HARIHAR, DAVANGERE-577601. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHICKPET POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 018. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.S.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.128/2012 OF CHICKPET P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 468 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The material facts of the prosecution case discloses that one K.Narasimha Rao, working as Assistant General Manager of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, is the Complainant. It is stated that in between 05.07.2012 and 11.07.2012, the petitioner and another accused Nisharath Banu opened Savings Bank Account in their bank. On 28.07.2012, the accused Nisharath Banu deposited a cheque bearing No. 000362 for Rs.1,29,770/- dated 23.07.2012 issued by M/s Parvathy Readymade of Dindugal Branch, Tamilnadu.
2. Later on, on 06.08.2012 the Complainant received the information that above mentioned cheque was issued in favour of M/s V.R.Exporters for Rs.38,169/- and sent it through Flyking Couriers. Payee of the cheque has not received the cheque and that petitioner deposited another cheque No. 000146 dt. 30.07.2012 for Rs.1,40,311/- of M/s Lakshmi Commercials of Bellary Branch and the same was presented and transferred to the Erode Branch, Tamilnadu on the same day. 3
3. Later on, the Complainant came to know that cheque is issued in favour of M/s Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. and not in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had tampered the cheque issued to different persons and get the amount encashed to their account. The tampering and misappropriation and also transfer of the amount to their account is clearly borne out from the records. Therefore, there is prima facie case. Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE VK