Dismissed

Sri Ravindranath S v. N S Ravi

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2021CRL.RP/392/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are maintainable only to challenge conviction, not acquittal. The court set aside judgments by Fast Track Courts, dismissed the revision with liberty to file appeals under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., and imposed ₹10,000 cost.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed subject to payment of ₹10,000 cost. Impugned acquittal judgments set aside. Liberty granted to file criminal appeals under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

Sri Ravindranath S Vs N S Ravi — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1108 OF 2011 C/W. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.392 OF 2013

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1108 OF 2011

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. Sree Maha Ganapathi Traders By its Proprietor, S. Ravindranatha, S/o. Late Shivaramaiah, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.29, 2^nd Floor, VUH Complex, Annadanappa Lane, Avenu Road Cross, Bangalore - 560 002.

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Kemparaju for A Lawmen's Chamber)

¶11

AND:

¶12

N.S. Ravi S/o. Subramanyam Sasthri, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.52, 4^th Cross Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 003. And also working at M/s. D.T.D.C. Courier Cargo Ltd., No.269, Lahari Towers,

¶13

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013

¶14

¶15

First Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore -18.

¶16

.. Respondent

¶17

(By Sri.K. Nagabhushan Reddy, Advocate)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 19-10-2010 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.12614/2007 and order dated 30-07-2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City (F.T.C.No.VII), Bangalore City in Crl.A. No.868/2010 etc.

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.392 OF 2013

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

Sri. Ravindranath S., S/o. Late Shivaramaiah, Aged about 50 years, Proprietor of M/s. Sree Maha Ganapathi Traders At No.29, 2^nd Floor, VUH Complex, Annadanappa Lane, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore - 560 002. (By Sri. Kemparaju for A Lawmen's Chamber)

¶23

..Petitioner

¶24

AND:

¶25

N.S. Ravi S/o. Subramanyam Sastri, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.52, 4^th Cross Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 003. And also working at

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 3

¶27

M/s. D.T.D.C. Courier Cargo Ltd., No.269, Lahari Towers, First Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore -18.

¶28

.. Respondent

¶29

(By Sri.R.K. Mahadeva, Advocate)

¶30

¶31

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19-10-2010 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.12499/2007 and confirmed by the order dated 22-01-2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -XIII, Bangalore City in Crl.A. No.870/2010 etc.

¶32

These Criminal Revision Petitions coming on for Final Hearing, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

These two Criminal Revision Petitions are filed by the complainant - Sri. S. Ravindranatha. He had instituted two criminal complaints against the present respondent in the Court of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") in C.C.No.12614/2007 and C.C.No.12499/2007, for the offence

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 4

¶36

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

¶37

1881,(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "N.I. Act").

¶38

Admittedly, after due trial, the said matter ended in acquittal of the accused therein, who is the present respondent, by its common judgment dated 19-10-2010. Challenging the said common judgment of acquittal, the complainant in the Trial Court preferred two criminal appeals under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. in Criminal Appeal No.868/2010 in C.C.No.12614/2007 before the Court of City Fast Track (Sessions)Judge, Bangalore City (F.T.C.No.VII) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "FTC-VII") and Criminal Appeal No.870/2010 in C.C.No.12499/2007 before the Court of Fast Track - XIII, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "FTC-XIII").

¶39

The learned FTC-VII and FTC-XIII, after hearing both side, dismissed the criminal appeals by its judgments dated 30-07-2011 and 22-01-2013 respectively and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by

¶40

the same, the complainant in the Trial Court who was the appellant in the FTC-VII and FTC-XIII, has preferred these two

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 5

¶42

Memorandum of Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

¶43

When these two matters were listed for their final hearing on the previous date of hearing, before the learned counsel for the petitioner could commence his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent, with the permission of the Court submitted that, the present revision petitions are not maintainable and that only an appeal would lie under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., as such, the maintainability of the revision petitions be heard and considered.

¶44

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments only on the question of maintainability. Though he contended that under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., this Court can revise the order passed by the Courts sub-ordinate to it, however, he sought for sometime to make his further submission in that regard. Accordingly, the matter was taken up today.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner, who, in the first round, when the matter was called, was appearing through video conference, sought for a pass over of the matter stating that, his colleague would produce a copy of the un-reported order of this

¶46

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 6

¶47

Court regarding maintainability of these petitions. Accordingly,

¶48

the matter which was initially taken up in the beginning of the afternoon session was passed over and was taken up at the end of the session.

¶49

Now, when the matter was taken up again, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conference relied upon an order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sri C. Shekar Vs. Smt. K. Saraswathi in Criminal Revision Petition No.674/2015 dated 08-02-2019 , by placing a photocopy of that order before this Court through his colleague who is physically present in the Court and submitted that, by virtue of the said order, the present revision petitions are maintainable.

¶50

A perusal of the said order would go to show that in the said case of Sri. C. Shekar Vs. Smt. K. Saraswathi (supra) , the complaint filed by the complainant in C.C.No.17243/2009 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru ended in acquittal of the accused in its judgment dated 15-03-2013. Against the said

¶51

¶52

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011

¶53

judgment of acquittal, the complainant in the Trial Court preferred a criminal appeal in Crl. Appeal No.195/2013 before the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City. The said criminal appeal ended in conviction of the accused under the judgment dated 15-11-2014 of the said Fast Track Court. Challenging the same, the accused preferred a revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.674/2015 before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

¶54

A contention was taken up in the said revision petition by the respondent therein regarding maintainability of the petition. After hearing both side, this Court held that, against the judgment of acquittal, it is only an appeal that would lie under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., but a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. would not lie. However, considering the request made by the petitioner before it, seeking liberty to prefer an appeal before the Court, this Court while setting aside the judgment passed by the Fast Track Court -IV therein, gave liberty to the petitioner before it to prefer a criminal appeal after giving the benefit of time consumed under wrong proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶55

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 8

¶56

In the instant case also, against the judgment of

¶57

acquittal, the complainant had wrongly approached the learned FTC-VII and FTC-XIII instead of approaching this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. However, both the parties contested the matter before the said FTC-VII and FTC-XIII, which matter also ended in acquittal of the accused. Therefore, there are judgments of acquittal by both the Trial Court as well by the Sessions Judge's Courts in the matter. Thus, in either way, the challenge, if any, the complainant intends to make against the impugned judgments of acquittal, can by no stretch of imagination be through a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and it is only under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. in the form of a criminal appeal.

¶58

It is at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner who also contended that he has been in search of another judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court stated to have been rendered about ten years back regarding maintainability, concedes that he would withdraw the present revision petitions, however, liberty be granted to him to file criminal appeals and

¶59

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 9

¶60

the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act also be given to him.

¶61

In the circumstances, needless to say that a judgment passed by a Court which does not have a jurisdiction to try the matter is a nullity in the eye of law. As such, without much discussion, it can be held that the impugned judgment passed by the learned FTC-VII and FTC-XIII in the matter in Criminal Appeal No.868 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.870 of 2010 is a nullity in the eye of law. Consequently, the appeals which are required to be preferred against the judgments of acquittal would only be before this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Since by misconception of law, the complainant approached the FTC-VII and FTC-XIII, wherein, the accused as a respondent also without raising any objection about the maintainability of the said appeals before the said Courts participated in its proceedings, I am of the view that the complainant be given an opportunity to prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶62

At the same time, considering the fact that despite there being a specific provision for challenging the acquittal order

¶63

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 10

¶64

under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., since the complainant once again initiated and proceeded on revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., instead of an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., and more importantly, much time has been taken by the petitioner in his attempt claiming that he would convince the Court in the light of the judicial precedents that, the present revision petitions are maintainable, I am of the view that, by imposing cost, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of these two revision petitions with liberty to file criminal appeals be allowed.

¶65

Accordingly, both these revision petitions stand disposed of, however, on a cost of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in total payable by the revision petitioner before the registry of this Court, within ten days from today.

¶66

Subject to payment of cost as ordered above, the impugned judgments of acquittal passed by the learned FTC-VII in Criminal Appeal No.868 of 2010 dated 30-07-2011 and by the learned FTC-XIII in Criminal Appeal No.870/2010 dated 22-01-2013, are set aside.

¶67

The complainant/ revision petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the

¶68

Crl.R.P.No.1108/2011 c/w.Crl.R.P.No.392/2013 11

¶69

learned Trial Court by preferring criminal appeals under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. before this Court within three weeks from today. In such an event, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act be made available to the revision petitioner.

¶70

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Trial Court and to the FTC-VII and FTC-XIII along with their respective

¶71

records forthwith.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

BMV*

Sri Ravindranath S v. N S Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravindranath S v. N S Ravi

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

Smt. Ambika Virupaksha Vs Sri. D.K. Shriram

Sri v Raju Vs Sri Ishaq Fairoz

Sri Thirthakumar Vs Patil Krushi Udyog Rambag Jamkhandi

Mohammed Sayeed Vs Smt. Nuzhath Sultana

Sri. C Deekshith Vs Smt. Lakshmi T L

Shri Mudlappa Vs Smt Vinutha T