Karnataka High Court
M/S Strava Technologies Pvt Ltd vs M/S Texonic Instruments on 4 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14322
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 461 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. STRAVA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
AT NO.T.C-23/1621-5
1ST FLOOR, GRACE BUILDING,
GOLF IN LIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695010
BY ACCUSED NO.2 AND DIRECTOR
2. MS. JANCY JOSE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O SURESH BABU,
DIRECTOR OF
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T M/S. STRAVA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,
Location: HIGH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
COURT OF AT NO.T.C23/1621-5
KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, GRACE BUILDING,
GOLF IN LIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695010.
3. MRS. LEELAMMA JOSE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O K. JOSE ABRAHAM
DIRECTOR OF
M/S. STRAVA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14322
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024
AT NO.T.C23/1621-5
1ST FLOOR, GRACE BUILDING,
GOLF IN LIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695010.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHYAM KAUNDINYA A.S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VINAY PAUL T.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. TEXONIC INSTRUMENTS
A REGISTRED PARTNERSHIP FIRSM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.1150, 12 MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038
DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR .SAJIN SEBASTIAN,
S/O MR. SEBASTIAN
MOB-08722213485
EMAIL. [email protected].
...RESPONDENT
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.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14322
CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024
ORDER
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.
2. The counsel would vehemently contend that he had approached the Trial Court in the month of March- 2024. 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 -4- NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024 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.
3. 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 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, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024 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.
4. 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. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14322 CRL.RP No. 461 of 2024
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59