Allowed

Smt R Uma Shivaramaiah v. Smt S H Leelavathi

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023CRL.RP/306/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of an appeal against a cheque bounce conviction. The superior court held that the first appellate court committed a mechanical error by rejecting the appeal without hearing the appellant and granting notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the appeal was set aside and the matter restored to the Sessions Judge to be disposed of on merits.

Smt R Uma Shivaramaiah Vs Smt S H Leelavathi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31184 CRL.RP No. 306 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 306 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. R. UMA SHIVARAMAIAH, D/O LATE R. SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.44, 4^TH CROSS, F.C.I. LAYOUT, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.S.K. FAREEDA TABREZ ANSARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.R. SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. S.H. LEELAVATHI, W/O H.H. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.729, 14^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 085

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. N. MUNI REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3744/2008 PASSED BY THE XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT AND SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.476/2014 DATED 21.10.2014.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:31184 CRL.RP No. 306 of 2015

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in CC.No.3744/2008, on the file of XII ACMM, Bangalore and dismissal of the appeal by preceding officer of Fast Track Court No.6 in Crl.A.No.476/2014 dated 21.10.2014.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

¶21

The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’), in C.C.No.3744/2008. After hearing the matter on merits, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by exercising the power under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. by imposing sentence of fine. This order is being challenged in Crl.A.No.476/2014 by the accused before the learned Sessions Judge.

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:31184 CRL.RP No. 306 of 2015

¶23

¶24

The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal on 21.10.2014 recording that there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and counsel for the appellant and copy of the petition was not furnished for issuing notice to the other side. This order is being challenged in this case.

¶25

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the appeal only on mechanical grounds. The appellate Court being the first appellate Court on fact and question of law should have given an opportunity to the appellant in this regard or it should have issued warrant against him, but without taking any other recourse straight away dismissed the appeal which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The appeal ought to have been heard on merits and in view of these facts and circumstances, revision petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The revision petition is allowed.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:31184 CRL.RP No. 306 of 2015

¶30

1. The impugned order passed by the Fast Tract Court IV in Crl.A.No.476/2014 dated 21.10.2014, is set aside.

¶31

1. The matter is restored and remanded back to the Sessions Judge with a direction to restore it in Original number. The revision petitioner is directed to comply the office objections and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed to issue notice to the respondent/complainant and then, dispose of the matter on merits.

¶32

1. The accused/revision petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 11.10.2023 at 10.30 a.m., without waiting for notice from the Court.

¶33

Send back the original records to the concerned trial Court along with a copy of this order.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt R Uma Shivaramaiah v. Smt S H Leelavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt R Uma Shivaramaiah v. Smt S H Leelavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimharaju H Vs R. Govindegowda

Sri. Basavaraju B Gundenahalli Vs Yogesh H.L.

Mr Annu Vs the State of Karnataka

C N Suresha Vs H S Rukmangadha

Sri Pyaru @ Mahamad Ibrahim Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Giri Vs State of Karnataka