VENKATESH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-1-1
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on January 28,1966

VENKATESH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M.A.KALEEK V. EMPEROR [REFERRED T0]
KADIRI KUNHAHAMMAD VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED T0]
PURUSHOTTAMDAS DALMIA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED T0]
BABULAL CHAUKHANI VS. KING [REFERRED T0]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner before this Court was the 2nd accused in the trial court. He has been convicted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary. of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rule I. for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further Rule I. for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed.
(2.)The prosecution case was that the petitioner represented to P. W. 9 Chandra-sekharappa of Shimoga that he would get him a genuine driving licence from Bellary and induced him to deliver Rs. 100/-. The petitioner asked P. W. 9 to give him Rs. 25/- in the first instance and also to give three of his p notographs. P. W. 9, believing him, gave Rs. 25/- and also the said three photographs. The petitioner promised to send the licence through Value Payable Post which P. W. 9 should take after payment of Rs. 75/-. Accordingly, when the V. P. article was received, P. W. 9 paid the sum of Rs. 75/-. He found that the licence sent to him was a forged licence. The very day, a complaint, Exhibit P-10, was given to the police. Further, the prosecution case was that accused-1 who was the manager of the office of the District Superintendent of Police, Bellary, forged the said licence intending that it should be used for the purpose of cheating P. W. 9 and had committed an offence under Section 468 I. P. C. Accused-1 was also charged with having abetted the offence of cheating of P. W. 9 committed by the petitioner and the offence of cheating was committed in consequence of such abetment. The trial Court acquitted accused-1 of the offences with which he was charged on the ground that the pro-section had failed to establish the case against him.
(3.)Sri Shamanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that P. W. 7 and P. W. 9 were accomplices whose evidence should not be accepted without any corroboration. He argues that except the oral evidence of P. W. 7 and P. W. 9 who were accomplices and are interested witnesses, there is no other circumstance connecting the petitioner with the crime to warrant his conviction under Section 420 I. P. C. Sri Shamanna also contends that the offence of cheating has been committed in Shimoga and therefore Bellary Court had no jurisdiction to try the petitioner and the trial of the petitioner is bad in law.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.