Dismissed

E. Siddaiah v. B.N. Ramesh

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2023CRL.RP/874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC against a conviction for cheque bouncing under Section 138 NI Act. The court accepted that the fine was deposited and the petition was abandoned by counsel, leading to dismissal for not being pressed. Quality assessed as thin due to minimal reasoning.

What did the court decide?

The revision standing dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner after deposit of the fine amount.

E. Siddaiah Vs B.N. Ramesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29987 CRL.RP No. 874 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 874 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

E. SIDDAIAH S/O ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO MF/16D, SRS- KEB QUARTERS, PEENYA, BANGALORE- 560 058.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. KUMARA .L, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

B.N. RAMESH S/O NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO 13, 9^TH CROSS, PIPELINE, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 003.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYARAJ GOWDA .M.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.03.2018 IN C.C.NO.8903/2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 31^st ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, (SCCH-2), BENGALURU AND ITS CONFIRMATION ORDER OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT 65^th ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-66) AT BENGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.706/2018.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29987 CRL.RP No. 874 of 2019

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed a memo stating that the entire amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is deposited before the trial court in C.C.No.8903/2015. Hence, he would further submit that the revision petitioner is not prosecuting the revision.

¶19

This revision filed against the judgment of conviction and the order dated 26.03.2018, discloses that the revision petitioner / accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was imposed fine of Rs.1,60,000/-. The appeal came to be dismissed.

¶20

Now learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the entire fine is deposited. He has also produced the certified copy of the order sheet of the trial court wherein, there is an endorsement of the deposit of entire find amount.

¶21

The said submission and memo is placed on records.

¶22

In view of the said memo, the revision stands dismissed as

¶23

not pressed.

¶24

Sd/JUDGE

¶25

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶26

E. Siddaiah v. B.N. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Siddaiah v. B.N. Ramesh

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

Mr Mallesha @ Malleshaiah, Vs Mr M H Doddaiah

Ali Syeed Khan Vs Mr Chandra Singh

S B Vishwanath Vs Prabhudev G

Rajanna Vs Lokesh B

Sri T R Naveen Kumar Vs Sri S M Shivashankar

Sri. B. Vijaya Kumar Hegde Vs M/S. Kanva Power Projects