The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition ex-parte as the petitioner's counsel was absent, despite the petition challenging a sentence for cheque dishonour.
Petition dismissed as being without merit due to absence of petitioner's counsel.
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 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.804 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Harindra Swamy, Son of M. Kariyappa, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.3, 10th Cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore – 560 079. …PETITIONER (By Shri. Ningaraja M.N., Advocate) AND:
Smt. K. Shivamma, Wife of Honne Gowda, Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.2, 13th Main Road, Nanjappa Layout, Vrishabhavathinagar, Bangalore – 560 079. …RESPONDENT
(By Shri. M.G.Ravisha, Advocate) ****
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.273/2012 and set aside the impugned order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in C.C.No.20708/2007.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard the
learned counsel for the respondent.
for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’, for brevity). The matter was not seriously contested since the petitioner had admitted that he had borrowed money and in repayment, had issued a cheque which when presented, was dishonoured and therefore, the complaint. The petitioner even admitted that he had partly repaid the amount and undertook to
3
repay the balance amount. Since the petitioner failed to do so, the Trial Court was left with no choice, but to hold that the evidence was established and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,90,000/- out of which the respondent was entitled to Rs.1,85,000/- as compensation. That having been carried in appeal on the ground that there was a mathematical error in the calculation made by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court had found that there was no such mathematical error and has confirmed the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.
The counsel for the petitioner has remained absent. Therefore, the petition is dismissed as being without merit.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition should be dismissed ex-parte in the absence of the petitioner's counsel.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Harindra Swamy
Smt. K. Shivamma
AND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
