Criminal Revision Petition filed to set aside confirmed conviction under NI Act. Court rejected petition due to lack of merit and petitioner's failure to deposit cheque amount and comply with notice issuance.
Criminal Revision Petition rejected; no relief granted to petitioner to set aside conviction or acquit him.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 575 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Sathyanarayana, Son of Neelaiah, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.EWS No.27, 3rd Cross, Vishwaguru Marga, E and F Block, Ramakrishnanagar, Mysore.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. B. Manjunath, Advocate [absent] )
AND:
Sri. H.N.Vasanna, Son of H. Ningegowda, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.1771, Panchamukhi, Behind Telephone Exchange, Hebbal II Stage, Mysore.
…RESPONDENT
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Mysore in Criminal Appeal No.35/2012 in confirming the judgment dated 27.1.2012 passed by the III Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC., at Mysore in C.C.No.1823/2010 and acquit the petitioner in the above case, in the interest of justice.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
None appears for the petitioner. The petitioner was the
accused before the trial court for an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’, for brevity). The petitioner had entered appearance and had contested the matter before the trial court. The court below ultimately had convicted the petitioner herein and had directed payment of a fine of Rs.41,000/- and out of which, Rs.36,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The same having been questioned in appeal, the appellate court has affirmed the judgment.
3
It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.
The findings are concurrent findings and therefore, the
scope of adjudication in the present petition is limited and given the grounds that are raised, there is no warrant for interference.
It is also noticed that this court had directed the petitioner to deposit the cheque amount within one week and it was thereafter adjourned, on the note that the petitioner had not made the deposit and had not reported the same. Again it was noticed by this court that notice had not been issued to the respondent and notice was directed to be issued. The petitioner has failed to pay the process even. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and the conduct of the petitioner would compound the fact that the petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the confirmed conviction and conviction order in cheque bounce case despite petitioner's failure to deposit amount.?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sathyanarayana
H.N.Vasanna
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
