Allowed

Sri.Basavaraj S/O Hulugappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2019CRL.P/100089/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court interpreted a prior order to require the awarded sentence under Sections 504 and 302 IPC to run concurrently, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Muthuramalingam.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to read the judgment and order that the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused has to run concurrently.

Sri.Basavaraj S/O Hulugappa Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100089 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI.BASAVARAJ, S/O HULUGAPPA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NIL (VADDARA CASTE), R/O: NEAR RODDAPPA MATH, SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SIRUGUPPA P.S. BALLARI, NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, BALLARI. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO TREAT/READ THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.08.2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

FAST TRACK COURT-I, IN S.C.NO.191/2006 "TO RUN CONCURRENTLY".

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed by the petitioner/

¶19

accused No.1 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the second respondent to treat and read the order of sentence dated 25.08.2007 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Ballari, in S.C. No.191/2006 to run concurrently and not consecutively.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents-State.

¶21

Petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.1 in S.C. No.191/2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Ballari, and he was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 302 of the Indian Penal

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

Code. The learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 25.08.2007, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 504 IPC; and also rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also ordered for set off of the sentence imposed under Section 428 of Cr. P.C.

¶24

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioner/accused that though the accused is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 and for six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 504, the said sentence imposed must run concurrently and not

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

consecutively. It is his further submission that no such order has been made. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Muthuramalingam Vs. State reported in (2016)8 SCC 313. On the said ground, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶28

It is the submission of the learned High

¶29

Court Government Pleader that there is no order, as to whether the sentence should run concurrently or consecutively; however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the sentence should run concurrently and therefore, he fairly submits that the petition may be allowed accordingly.

¶30

I have perused the decision of the Hon’ble

¶31

Apex Court and the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has not made it clear as to whether the sentence imposed for the offences under Section 504 and 302 of IPC should

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

run concurrently or consecutively. Hence, the

¶34

contention of the petitioner appears to be justifiable and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muthuramalingam quoted supra, the sentence imposed must run concurrently and the same has to be read in this behalf.

¶35

In the light of the discussion held by me above and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted supra, the petition is disposed with a direction to the second respondent to read the judgment and order, dated 28.05.2007 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Ballari, in S.C. No.191/2006, that sentence imposed therein on the petitioner/accused has to run concurrently.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Kms

Sri.Basavaraj S/O Hulugappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Basavaraj S/O Hulugappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhushan S/O. Sudhakar Wankhade Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankarram Channaram Sutar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Yaseen S/O Dastagir Yadwad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Abhay Kumar S/O Bharmgouda Patil Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr.Basavaraj Malleshi Dharnatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr.Prakash Naik S/O Venkappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka