KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE v. BANGALORE – 01
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 279, 304A, 337, 338
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the result, I pass the following order. The revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- JUDGE KM
Judgment
SRI. ANNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS TEMPO DRIVER R/AT NO.507, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: GANESH G G, ADVOCATE FOR SRIYUTHS: B BASAVARAJ AND VEERESH REDDY S PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE BY KARNATAKA BY CHANNAPATAN RURAL POLICE REP BY SPP OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 01. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF ON 15.12.2007 IN C.C.NO.432/2001 AND CONFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, IN CRL.A.NO.2/2008 DATED 16.11.2010. 2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The revision petitioner-accused has filed the revision petition on 23.12.2010.
On 2.8.2012, when the revision petition was listed for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment and the case was finally adjourned to 10.8.2012. Again when the case was listed on 10.8.2012 for admission, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he intends to retire from the case. Therefore, he was directed to serve a notice by RPAD and produce the acknowledgment.
Even today, learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks time. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has neither filed the Memo for retirement nor produced the RPAD and copy of notice sent to his client. 3
Perused the revision petition and the impugned judgment. The trial Court has convicted the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337,338 and 304A of the IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.750/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and to pay Rs.350/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.750/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC and to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. The trial Court has further ordered that in default of payment of total fine amount of Rs.1,850/- the accused shall undergo S.I. for three months. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.432/2001, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.2/2008. The appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal 4 and dismissed the same. Therefore, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments.
In the result, I pass the following order. The revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- JUDGE KM
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 279, 304A, 337, 338.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 16 Nov 2010. The bench was K BHAKTHAVATSALA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.