Karnataka High Court
Savita W/O Shankar Jigajinni vs The Belgaum Urban Credit Sauharda ... on 19 January, 2010
Pachchapure, Advocate.)
IN THE EICII COURT or KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19"" DAY or JANUARY'V.2_G4'1{j"-ifV:
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Aiiulii/5iL'II.vN,AG;'t.i§IA,g'«._|iV{
CRL.R.P. N0;i.2:"l.TIf5/i2i00i9 I
BETWEEN:
Savita W/o. Shankar Jigajinni A V I »
Age: Major, OCCI hot't1seho.id"*work; V. ..
R/0. 1551, Near Ma':-aft Te.mp1e=;
Maruti T6lTipi€_.C0'v}Il§iQli.nd Mal),
Hindwadi,
---- i ...Petitioner.
(By Sri.G.R.Andafi,iITIat.h &%iS..,vS.N_iranjan, Advocates.)
AND:
The Belgfstum. Urba»n_iCredi't
arda°<Sahai<y_ari L'i1'TI--i--t~e' ,
P'antyiPrasadi'Conip._1ex,
Samadevii' Gaiy1ti,"B_ei-gaum.
ii ...Respondent.
E ii.[_'~'i"hii's_Criminal Revision Petition is filed U/S.397 r/w.
'401. (.7{r'.'P.£'. by the advocate for the petitioner praying that
i.'j~th_'i's'iHion'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of
ic0_r1'v*i~ction dated I0/7/2006 in C.C.No.i308/2004 passed by
t..h'e"iearned JMFC III Court, Belgaum, and Confirmed by the
c'""°"°"::m\'\--""fl"'
order dated 28/4/2008 in Crl.A.N'o.i65/2006 passed by the
learned Fast Track Court-I'1 and Addl. Sessions Judge,
Belgaurn, etc.,.
This petition coming on for hearing on ineter'l»o.c'ut~0r'j-gg
application this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present Criminalpviiftevisiion Peti~tio.n""'is 'ifiledir U/Sec.397 of Cr.P.C. by the aprp*el:.l"ant"'-»in Crin;-i.nVal Appeal No.165/2006 on the fileifliogf as Officer and Additional Sessio.n's:..p:VJpV'udg:e, Belgaurn, challenging the of Judgment and Order the said appeal dismissing it on merits.
arguments of both the sides. The revisiiOfi.._peti'tii'o..ner;'Was accused in C.C.N0.l308/2004 on the of the taunted }MFC-iil Court, Belgaurn. The learned his Judgment and Order dated 10/7/2006 passed ii"ii.'j~Vrirn""t'he§said case, convicted her for the offence punishable {ll/:;%ec.l38 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her §'""""r*~a«-~«.,.,.t.-3 to pay fine of Rs.l,30,000/-- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year.
3) Aggrieved by the said Judgment _ conviction the revision petitioner filednher C-r'-'i'in.i.na»l°;4:Xppeal W 'V No.165/2006. The Appellate Court"A;4pajs'sel(liimlpluggnietl Judgment and Order dismissi.n"g...V_ the" and'-ii confirming the Judgment and Orgd-er:oflconvicltien passed by the Trial Court without arlguments of the learned counsel '1-for Therefore, Sri.Shiriyanr1iav.ai';3tithe, =.le~arnecl "'cou'nsel for the revision petitioner strongly dismissal of the appeal on merits without hearing-.th'e arguments of the learned counsel "t-heappieila'n.t-accused is bad in law and therefore the and Order passed by the Appellate de«ser\,_-*e's~,t:o be set aside.
4'-w--P""\..
«-...:
is the settled principle!' as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh and vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2439, that the appeal filed by the accused in a criminal case aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction cannot be disposed of on merits wit'.h.out.,.hleaiin_'g the arguments of the learned advocate"for_ is further laid down by the Hon'blel1Sup_reme:,_C,our't said case that, if the counsel r'epresenti"ngl"'th-e appellants accused remains absent,»the_ shall have to appoint a lawyer atvthe Statevex'plens€€'l"t,odais-sl'ist it and then dispose of the applielaliidreoln
5) tlhe""aplpellate Court at para No.5 of that in spite of giving sufficientpvopportuiiity,ibthielil learned Advocate for the applelalriland no arguments were addressed and's-..tlh.ere"folt'e.," Via-ft~er hearing the arguments of the T"lirespondent-c__oinp'lainant therein, the Appellate Court the said appeal and thereby confirmed the Order of conviction passed by the Trial That being so, I am of the considered opinion that Since this main petition is disposed___ of, Misc.Cri.N0.1581i/2009 does not survive for c0nsi--d'e«f'éiL:ti:b.n.
Mrk/--