M/S Geyem Impex (Pvt) Ltd. Vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation

GEORGE JACOB S/O T C JACOB JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S GEYEM IMPEX (PVT) LTD., SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT, SUBBAIAH REDDY GARDEN, BANGALORE THUNDIATH HOUSE VAZHOOR - 686 504

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. DINESH NEELKANT GAONKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACB, BANGALORE.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29697 CRL.A No. 115 of 2012

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C. BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 6 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 28.11.11 PASSED BY THE XLVII ADDL.C.C. AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.(CORRUPTION) CASE NO.509/02 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 6 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 IPC AND ETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri Dinesh Neelkanth Gaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI.

¶26

While disposing of the connected appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.35/2012, 40/2012 and 45/2012 by common order dated 30.01.2025, due to typographical error the present appeal number is also included in the cause title. However, in the operative portion there is no order with regard

¶27

to the present appeal as the counsel for appellant did not

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29697 CRL.A No. 115 of 2012

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

choose to address the arguments, when common order came to be passed in connected appeals.

¶31

It is submitted by counsel for appellants that, for compliance of the conviction order, warrant was issued by the Trial Magistrate and appellant was taken to custody on 10.06.2026 and he was released on 11.06.2026 with a direction to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as fine amount as per the common order dated 30.01.2025. However, again he was re-arrested on 12.06.2026, as there was no order passed in Criminal Appeal No.115/2012 in the operative portion and the time to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had expired long back.

¶32

It is now submitted by counsel for appellant that

¶33

sum of Rs.50,000/- is already paid as fine amount before the Court on 11.06.2026.

¶34

Memo with two demand drafts totaling to sum of Rs.2,50,000/- furnished before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for appellants would submit

¶36

that since this Court has allowed the appeal of the similarly placed accused in Criminal Appeal No.35/2012,

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:29697 CRL.A No. 115 of 2012

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

45/2012 and 40/2012, same benefit be granted in terms of the common Order dated 30.01.2025.

¶41

Counsel for contesting respondent, Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar has no objection granting the similar benefit to the present appellant. But since there is a delay in paying the fine amount, suitable enhanced fine amount may be ordered taking note of fact that the second appellant also represents the first appellant.

¶42

In other words, Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar would submit that if sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (in respect of both the appellants) is paid towards the fine amount, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- each as per the common order dated 30.01.2025 and Rs.50,000/- enhanced fine amount as there is a delay, suitable orders be passed.

¶43

Taking note of the fact that on 11.06.2026, the second appellant who is in custody has already deposited a

¶44

sum of Rs.50,000/- and having furnished the demand drafts in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- before this Court which should be sent to the Trial Court drawn in the name of

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29697 CRL.A No. 115 of 2012

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, appeal can be disposed off in terms of the common Order dated 30.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.40/2012 and connected matters.

¶48

Accordingly, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) Appeal is allowed in terms of common Order dated 30.01.2025 in Crl.A.No.40/2012 and connected

¶51

matters.

¶52

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, present appellants are directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/each (which has already been paid), the suitable Orders be issued by the Learned Magistrate for the release of appellant No.2, forthwith.

¶53

(iii) Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to communicate this Order forthwith by an e-mail to the

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29697 CRL.A No. 115 of 2012

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

concerned Court and counsel for appellant is permitted to file an affidavit before the jurisdictional Magistrate in the afternoon session seeking necessary release Order from the hands of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶57

(iv) Ordered accordingly.

¶58

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶59

MR/SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27

M/S Geyem Impex (Pvt) Ltd. v. State by Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Geyem Impex (Pvt) Ltd. v. State by Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.N.Nagarathnamma Vs Mallamma

Sadhu Poojary Vs Chandrashekar

Sri Gurumallappa Vs Smt. C M Kechamma

Sri Rajanna Vs Sri Harish T L

Sri. Balaji Sreenivasan Vs Sri. M. Muniswamy

Sri S P Anjinappa Vs Smt Rathnamma