Karnataka High Court
Chodashariff Aliyas Mahmed Shariff vs State By Balehonnur Police on 25 October, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1058 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
CHODASHARIFF ALIYAS
MOHMED SHARIFF
S/O. ABDULLA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KADLEMAKKI
BALEHONNUR POST
N.R. TALUK - 577112
NOW RESIDING AT # NO. 69
4TH CROSS, BELAVATHA GRAMA
RAJENDRA NAGARA, MYSORE
... PETITIONER
(BY SRIVENKATRAMAN NAIK, ADV.
FOR SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV. )
AND:
STATE BY BALEHONNUR POLICE
BALEHONNUR
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577112.
... RESPONDENT
(BY: SRI. B. RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIN 397 CR.P.C.,PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT DATED 09.08.2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN CRL. A. NO. 73/2011
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 21.03.2011 PASSED BY THE C.J., AND JMFC,
N.R. PURA ISN C.C.NO.263/2010.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, in Criminal Appeal No.73/2011 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC N.R.Pura in C.C. No.263/2011 by judgment dated 21.03.2011, whereunder the learned Magistrate has found the accused guilty of offence under Section 174A and 229A of IPC.
3
2. Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. It is seen from the records, that the petitioner after securing bail in C.C. No.139/2006 remained absent and court was constrained to issue warrant and subsequently issued proclamation and attachment of property of the petitioner. Since both the courses did not yield any result, the trial court registered a separate case against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 174A, and 229A of IPC and a charge sheet came to be filed thereafter. Before the Learned magistrate two witnesses were examined and documents Exs. P1 to P15 are marked. The trial Court held the petitioner guilty and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences under Section 229A IPC and further imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.2,000/- 4 for the offence under Section 174A IPC with separate default clauses. Challenging the said order of conviction, petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, which came to be rejected.
4. Heard Sri. Venkataraman Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B. Raja Subramanyabhat, learned HCGP for the respondent/ State.
5. It is seen from the judgment produced before this court that the original case in which the petitioner has absconded has ended with an order of acquittal, the petitioner having voluntarily surrendered before the court and therefore having regard to the fact that the petitioner is before the court right from the year 2006 when the original case was registered and further fact that the petitioner is aged 34 years, leniency can be shown so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, while on proper appreciation of the evidence 5 on record, the order of conviction does not call for interference. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction is required to be sustained while the order of sentence is required to be altered in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate, Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), JMFC, N.R.Pura in C.C. No.26/2010 dated 25.03.2011 as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.73/2011 is hereby confirmed.
The order of sentence is modified and the sentence imposed on the petitioner on both the Courts is set aside and in its place, the petitioner is imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/-on each Court in default, to suffer Simple imprisonment for two months on each court. With these modifications, this revision petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is given one month 6 time to deposit the balance amount of fine, failing which the trial court is directed to recover the same in accordance with law.
In view of the disposal of the main petiton, IA1/2012 do not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/ JUDGE Bsv