Karnataka High Court
Kiran Mohan Mahale, vs Shashikant Dattaram Revankar, on 19 August, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. a DATED THIS THE 19'» DAY OF AUG UST, 201 1 BEFORE . . CRL.R.P.NO. 2167/2011, MISC.CRL.NO.16009/20i1 Between: KIRAN MOHAN MAHALE ; AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS... . R/O.SHIRESH ENTERPRISES - ASHRAM ROAD) KARWAR | er ee . PETITIONER (BY SREVINAY SROUIALAGEAND SMI. VIIAY i. AXMEMGN:, ADVOCATES) And: SAS TUSANT DATT ARAM REVANKAR M/S. VIMALESHWAR PRASANNA Ri 'O.NEAR GOV ERN MENT HIGH SCHOOL KARWAR.. ~ . RESPONDENT THIS RIMIN AL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER ~ SECTION 307 oR/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ; THE. Ju HAGE! MENT AND ORDER DATED 02.04.2008 PASSED BY. THE D DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, IN CRL.A.NO.165/2006 CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMEC II- COURT, KARWAR, IN C.C.NO.2529/1999 DATED 18.10.2006 "AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY. j ho 1 THIS MISC.CRL.NO.16009/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF a LIMITATION ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1078 IN FILING THE APPEAL THESE REVISION PETITION AND MISC. CRE. COM! LING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: oO ORDER
The police have reported | that the respondent is not traced in the address giver.by hun in-tHe original complaint before the Magistrate. Hence,: there 1S 110° burpose in waiting for the respondent for disposal' of. Misc.Cil.No, 16009/2011 filed for condonatios of delay-te filing the revision petition.
2. Heard the learned Coumsel for the petitioner.
3. Having regz gard to the: facts narrated in the application the-delay cf 1078 days caused in filing the revision petition is condoried>.
4. Heard regarding the merits of the case. It is seen _that.the learned Sessions Judge in A.No.165/2006 has .consideréd the defence of the petitioner on merits and the ct .. learned Sessions Judge has held that the judgment of 'onviction passed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with law and that there is no irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in convicting the accused petitioner, 5S. | have gone through the materials placed-on record>.] accordance with law. Hence, the order of conviction "passed" by the learned Magistrate as corifirmed by 'the | learned Sessions Judge does not require any interference. "So far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted chat the petitioner is doing a small business and that in the.past few years he has suffered loss and he is now ready to pay the entire amount of chequie. to, the respondent complainant. Hence, sentence of imprisonment "imposed for a period of three months on the petitioner is set aside while confirming the order _ regarding. payment of fine and payment of compensation. out of the fine amount. The petitioner is given ? four months time from today to deposit the entire fine amount as imposed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, revision petition is disposed of.
d/-
AN]