Karnataka High Court
M/S Om Promotions And Advertising vs Mr Mukesh M Jani on 21 July, 2014
1 Crl.RP 429/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.429 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/S OM PROMOTIONS & ADVERTISING
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.625
5TH MAIN ROAD, OMBR LAYOUT
BANASWADI, BANGALORE-43
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
MR.OM PRAKASH NEMANI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS: LEXPLEXUS & C M POONACHA, ADVS)
AND:
MR MUKESH M JANI
PROPRIETOR
ACCURATE NETWORK
NO.3, MALHAR HOUSE
BEHIND RATHNAM COMPLEX
NEAR NIKUMB COMPLEX
C.G.ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380 015.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: S G BHAGAVAN, ADV)
THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.03.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-III AND
ADDL.SJ, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE AND CONFIRM THE
2 Crl.RP 429/12
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED
29.03.2011 BY THE XIV ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.RP. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard the counsel for both the parties on the memo filed.
2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal in an appeal against the order of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. Under the present memo, he has sought for conversion of this revision petition into an appeal by filing a memo under the provisions of Section 401(5) Cr.P.C. on the ground that against the order of acquittal, the appeal lies before this Court and not the revision petition. By mistake, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner.
3 Crl.RP 429/12
4. The respondent has objected this memo on the ground that the period for filing the appeal is over and as there are no reasons to convert this revision petition into an appeal, he has sought for dismissal of the revision petition. He states that as envisaged under Section 401(5) Cr.P.C. there is nothing in the memo regarding the petitioner having an erroneous belief of no appeal lies.
5. Perusal of the memo filed by the counsel for petitioner would reveal that there was a bonafide belief that there is no remedy of appeal available to the petitioner and as the appeal is maintainable against the order of acquittal, he has sought for conversion of revision petition into an appeal. Perusal of the provisions of Section 401(5) Cr.P.C. would reveal the enabling provision to convert this revision petition into an appeal.
4 Crl.RP 429/12
6. So far as the application for grant of special leave is concerned, it is only after an order seeking conversion is granted. In case, if there is any delay, it is left open to the petitioner to file an application before the Court to condone the delay.
7. So far as the belief is concerned, as could be seen from the provisions of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., an appeal against the order of acquittal could be maintained subject to grant of special leave. As such application for special leave is to be filed in an appeal, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps after conversion is granted.
8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the permission sought for has to be accorded. The revision petition is ordered to be treated as an appeal. The petitioner and registry to take appropriate steps for its 5 Crl.RP 429/12 conversion and list this matter before the Court after steps are taken.
For statistical purposes, the revision petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-