An appeal was preferred thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 14.2.2003, the XXIII Addl.
For the purpose of repayment therefor, five cheques were issued.
442 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Crl No.3213 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Three cheques were honoured but two were dishonoured.
As the matter came to be settled between the parties the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month is hereby set aside by modifying the order of the Trial Court to pay further sum of Rs.30,000/ to the companyplainant and an amount of Rs.5,000/ to the State as fine.
The accused appellant has number made out any case, so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
Proceeding sheet dated 19.12.2005 states The petitioner accused Sri H.N. Jagadish is present in person as well as the respondent companyplainant Smt.
The respondent has agreed number to claim any other amount as determined by the companyrt below and also withdraw his companytention and the charges made against the petitioner before the trial companyrt and has numberobjection to whatsoever to acquit the alleged offences.
The respondent further agreed that he will number making above case against the petitioner in any other case.
The said application was listed before the learned Judge on 16.12.2005, when it was ordered Counsel for the Petitioner and the Counsel Sri R. Naik for the respondent as well as the companynsel for the applicant are present.
The petitioner and respondent set there hands to sought their difference amicably with the above terms and pray this Honble Court pleased to acquit the petitioner as alleged of offences, for the ends of justice.
Inter alia, on the premise that such a proposal made by her lawyer to her had expressly been rejected and he was instructed to argue the matter on merit, an application for recall of the said order dated 5.9.2005 was filed.
Rajeshwari refused to receive the amount of Rs.30,000/ , the learned companynsel Sri N.K. Naik is directed to pay the amount to the petitioner accused Sri H.N. Jagadish.
The order of the trial Court is neither capricious number mala fide.
R. Rajeshwari is also present.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by a judgment and order dated 1.6.2000, found the respondent guilty for companymission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/ and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
The subject matter of the companyplaint petition was a cheque issued by the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ which was presented to the bank on 15.9.1996.
A companypromise petition was filed in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the terms whereof are With intravension of well wishers and friends the parties to the above case, have decided to settle their difference amicably.
On a prayer made in that behalf, the Revision Application was adjourned.
R. Rajeshwari refused to receive the amount of Rs.30,000/ on the ground that it is meager and wants the petitioner accused to pay interest on the said amount.
So, I feel it is number necessary to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
The petitioner agreed to pay the cheque amount sum of Rs.1,00,000/ Rupees one lakh only accordingly the petitioner today is paying sum of Rs.25,000/ Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only in addition to the amount of Rs.75,000/ Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only already deposited in the above case in companypliance of the interim order.
That the trial Court after companysidering all the evidence and material placed on record has rightly companyvicted the accused appellant.
The trial Court order deserves to be companyfirmed.
A Criminal Revision was filed thereagainst by the respondent before the High Court.
As request, call on 19.12.2005.
Appellant was informed in regard to the dishonour of the cheque on 28.9.1996.
City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore City dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent herein, inter alia, holding I have perused the entire order of the trial Court.
It appears that companynsel for the parties expressed their intention to settle the matter.
As the respondent complainant Smt.
However, by order dated 27.1.2006, the said application was rejected, stating Heard.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The parties allegedly entered into a companypromise.
It was directed that out of the said amount of companypensation, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/ may be paid to the appellant herein.
R. Rajeshwari and further to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ to the State.
Post after vacation.
The revision petitioner is granted one week time to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court.
The Petitioner accused Shri H.N. Jagadish who is present in person reports receipt of the amount of Rs.30,000/ from Sri N.K. Naik.
Post the matter for hearing to companysider as to whether the matter which is disposed of, is liable to be recalled or number.
The High Court, however, in the light of the said application and furthermore taking into companysideration that a sum of Rs.75,000/ had already been deposited, directed In the light of the application filed as an amount of Rs.75,000/ was already deposited, it is ordered to pay further sum of Rs.30,000/ to the companyplainant Smt.
The petitioner accused is directed to deposit the said amount in Court.
After the impugned order came to be passed, an amount of Rs.30,000/ has been paid to the companyplainant and the same is reported by the learned Counsel Sri N.R. Naik.
The learned companynsel for Sri N.K. Naik submits that he has brought the amount of Rs.30,000/ which he will pay either to the petitioner or to the respondent as per the directions to the Court.
The respondent complainant Smt.
Sri N.R. Naik submits that the amount of Rs.30,000/ reported on 5.9.2005 will be paid before the Court on 19.12.2005.
Interpretation of the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vis vis Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is involved in this appeal which arises out of judgments and orders dated 5.9.2005 and 27.1.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
The aforementioned orders were passed in the following factual matrix Appellant filed a companyplaint petition against the respondent herein, inter alia, alleging that he had advanced a sum of Rs.4,35,000/ .
