Dismissed

M/S Strava Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Texonic Instruments

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024CRL.RP/461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directors convicted in a cheque-dishonour case sought extension of time to deposit compensation under Section 148(2) NI Act nearly a year after the order. The court held the statutory maximum of 90 days could not be extended, found no error in rejecting the memo, distinguished cited precedents, and dismissed the revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Strava Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Texonic… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 461 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. STRAVA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.T.C-23/1621-5 1^ST FLOOR, GRACE BUILDING, GOLF IN LIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695010 BY ACCUSED NO.2 AND DIRECTOR

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MS. JANCY JOSE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O SURESH BABU, DIRECTOR OF M/S. STRAVA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.T.C23/1621-5 1^ST FLOOR, GRACE BUILDING, GOLF IN LIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695010.

¶11

MRS. LEELAMMA JOSE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O K. JOSE ABRAHAM

¶12

DIRECTOR OF M/S. STRAVA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024

¶14

AT NO.T.C23/1621-5 1^ST FLOOR, GRACE BUILDING, GOLF IN LIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695010.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI SHYAM KAUNDINYA A.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VINAY PAUL T.K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S. TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS A REGISTRED PARTNERSHIP FIRSM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1150, 12 MAIN, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038

¶19

DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR .SAJIN SEBASTIAN, S/O MR. SEBASTIAN MOB-08722213485 EMAIL. [email protected].

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-73), BENGALURU ON THE MEMO DATED 01.03.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN CRL.A.NO.25071/2023 AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner. This revision petitioner is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the memo for extension of time. When a memo is filed before the Trial Court to deposit the amount, the Trial Court rejected the memo on the ground that maximum 90 days time is already granted and the appellant has not complied with order of this Court. The Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time more than 90 days.

¶26

The counsel would vehemently contend that he had approached the Trial Court in the month of March2024. The order was passed on 09.03.2023, almost after one year. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not committed any error in rejecting the application since the very proviso of Section 148(2) is very clear that the amount referred in sub-section (i) shall be deposited within 60 days from the date of order or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024

¶28

by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. But, the fact is that the revision petitioner has approached the Appellate Court almost after one year and not even within 60 days by filing necessary application. Even if such application is filed within 60 days and if sufficient cause is shown in the application another 30 days time is also allowed to extend that time. Admittedly, the memo is filed almost after one year and hence, I do not find any error committed by Appellate Court in rejecting the memo. When such being the case, an order has been passed in terms of Section 148(2) of NI Act. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in rejecting the memo.

¶29

The counsel for revision petitioner in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.4550 of 2020 in

¶30

case of Syed Ishrahulla Hussain V/s Mr.Noor Ahmed.N.M wherein extending of time to deposit the amount, the said judgment is not binding on this Court,

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024

¶32

since if any judgment is passed against the statute it amounts to Stare decisis and hence question of relying upon the judgment does not arise.

¶33

The counsel also relied upon other judgment of the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.2741/2023 dated 04.09.2023 wherein also discussed with regard to the suspending of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. It is also settled law while suspending the sentence by invoking Section 389, Court can impose conditions or without any conditions whether it comes within the purview of exceptions or not. It is discretion of the Court while granting the relief either by granting the bail or suspending the sentence and the said judgment is also not in respect of the proviso as contemplated under Section 148(2) of NI Act. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, I do not find any ground in the contention of the counsel for revision petitioner. Hence, no grounds are made out to entertain the revisional jurisdiction.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024

¶36