B R SATHISH v. SHAMANNA

(BY SRI: R SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: SHAMANNA S/O MUNIRAMU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT OFFICERS MODEL COLONY S M ROAD, JALAHALLI WEST BANGALORE – 15. ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.4.2012 PASSED BY THE XIII ACMM, BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.1496/2009 AND THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2012 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.314/2012 PASSED BY FTC-XI, BANGALORE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2

O R D E R The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused submits that the accused had taken hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2007 and he had issued three signed blank cheques along with one blank bond paper worth Rs.100/- and the said loan was discharged by the accused through a cheque bearing No.87518 drawn on T.G.M.C. Bank, Bangalore, but the complainant did not return the three security cheques and that the complainant has misused one of the blank cheques and filed a false complaint. The contention was taken by the accused before the trial Court and also before the appellate Court, but both the Courts erred in not appreciating the said contention and also the evidence adduced by the accused in that regard.

The first appellate Court on re- appreciation of the evidence on record and the grounds urged by the accused came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal 3 and therefore, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the trial Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.

In the result, I pass the following order. Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.

In view of disposal of the revision petition, I.A.1/2012 for suspension of sentence does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KM