Girija Shedthy vs Ganapathi Bhat on 7 August, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Girija Shedthy vs Ganapathi Bhat on 7 August, 2012

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

    DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

               CRL.RP.NO.427/2010
                       A/W
              MISC.CRL.NO.1307/2010

BETWEEN:

GIRIJA SHEDTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O RATHNAKARA SHETTY
KOLKER, BASRUR VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
                                    ... PETITIONER
                                         (common)

(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY. H, ADV.)

AND:

GANAPATHI BHAT
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O THIMMAPPA BHAT
DEVARA KARAKATTE
BASRUR VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
                                   ... RESPONDENT
                                        (common)

(BY SRI S.K.ACHARYA, ADV.)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ
WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24.11.2009 PASSED BY
THE   P.O.,  FTC.,   UDUPI  DISTRICT,  UDUPI    IN
                             2




CRL.A.NO.81/2008 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE
ORDER DATED 16.2.2008 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J.,
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, AT KUNDAPURA IN C.C.NO.54/2002.

     THIS MISC.CRL. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF
LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF
13 DAYS IN FILING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

   THIS PETITION A/W MISC.CRL. COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

This revision petition is by the complainant questioning the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the respondent-accused of the allegation under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In view of the ratio of law in the case of K.H.GANESH RAO vs. H.GOPAL, 2011(1) Kar.L.J. 652 (DB), revision petition is not maintainable and the complainant-petitioner if aggrieved, has to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, with the leave of this Court under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.

Consequently, petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner is granted liberty to prefer a 3 criminal appeal against the impugned judgment. Time taken to prosecute this revision petition from 10.03.2010 till date, shall stand excluded, if an application seeking condonation of delay is filed and an appeal is preferred within a period of 10 days from today.

Misc.Crl.No.1307/2010, does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court