Basavaraj S/O Shantappa Patil vs The Gulbarga And Yadgir Dist. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7043 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200054/2020

BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ S/O SHANTAPPA PATIL
AGE: 57, OCC: AGRI
R/O ATANOOR VILLAGE
TQ: AFAZALPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 112
                                            ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH & SRI F.M.INAMDAR,
SMT. NAGARATNA C.J., SMT. JAISHILA G, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE GULABARGA AND YADGIR DISTRICT
CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
AFAZAPUR BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
SHARANAGOUDA S/O GURULINGAPPAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BRANCH MANAGER
R/O AFZALPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 103
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED)

     THIS CRL.R.P. FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C,
BY THE REVISION PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AFZALPUR IN C.C.NO.508/2013 AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                2




                           ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

he had informed to the panel advocate Sri Gourish S

Khashampur, the panel advocate for the respondent-bank.

2. This petition is filed challenging the conviction

order passed in C.C.No.508/2013 convicting the petitioner

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act

and also the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and also

sentenced to pay fine as double of the cheque amount i.e.,

Rs.4,22,896/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, an

appeal was filed in Crl.A.No.52/2018 and the same was

dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

While filing the revision petition, the petitioner counsel also

produced a copy of the letter issued by the respondent

dated 29.08.2020 wherein, it is confirmed that on

01.10.2011 an amount of Rs.4,13,000/- loan was obtained

and that on 29.06.2020, entire loan amount was repaid by

the petitioner herein and there are no dues.

3. This Court issued notice against the

respondent and inspite of service of notice, there was no

representation for the respondent-bank. Hence, this Court

vide order dated 29.11.2021 directed the petitioner to

verify whether is there any panel advocate for the

respondent-bank and today, the panel advocate name is

mentioned i.e., Sri Gourish S Khashampur and learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has intimated

to him the same on 15.12.2021 and today also there is no

representation on behalf of the respondent. This Court

with abundant caution tried to verify the genuineness of

the said letter.

4. Having taken note of the letter of the

respondent-bank that as there is no dues from this

petitioner and the entire loan amount was cleared on

29.06.2020 and the said letter is not disputed by the

respondent inspite of service of notice. Hence, it is

appropriate to allow the petition and set aside the order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.508/2013

directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of

for a period of six months. If no such payment is made in

terms of the letter dated 29.06.2020, the respondent is

given liberty for revival of this petition.

5. With the above observations, the petition is

disposed of setting aside the sentence imposed against the

petitioner since the amount has been cleared by the

revision petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SAN