In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of the matter holding that the petitioner fulfilled his sentence by paying the fine, discharging him from the default imprisonment and directing the refund of cash surety.
Petitioner discharged from default sentence of one year; trial court directed to refund cash surety.
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.
CRL.RP No. 87 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 87 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURESH S/O. LATE EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. (BY SRI. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K B., ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION, KUNIGAL, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMAKURU DATED 15.10.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.37/2014, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.717/2012, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.RP No. 87 of 2016
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has instructions to appear in this petition and that due to the reasons beyond her control, she could not appear on the previous date of hearing, as a result of which, this Court had issued notice to the petitioner. She further submits that she is ready to argue the revision petition. Hence, the petition is heard and taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal in C.C.No.717/2012 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Section 134(A) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- within one month for the offence punishable under Sections 279 of IPC and Rs.250/within one month for the offence punishable under Section 134(A) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, failing which, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner has also challenged the correctness of the judgment dated
CRL.RP No. 87 of 2016
15.10.2015 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.37/2014.
CRL.RP No. 87 of 2016
sentence and hence, he is discharged from undergoing the
default sentence of one year.
The trial Court is directed to refund cash surety deposited
by the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be discharged from the default sentence upon payment of the fine.
Whether the revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under IPC 279 and Motor Vehicles Act should be disposed of.
Whether the cash surety deposited by the petitioner should be refunded.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. SURESH S/O. LATE EREGOWDA
STATE
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
