Karnataka High Court
Sri. Badruddin @ Badru@ vs State By Upparpet Police Station, on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.672 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SRI BADRUDDIN @ BADRU @
SHANAL JAMEDAR @ AZARUDDIN
@ HAZARUDDIN,
S/O KHUTBUDDIN, MAJOR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KATTE PLOT, NEW NAIK GALLI,
BACKSIDE OF BAHERGALLI,
BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY UPPARPET POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
*****
2
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
15.04.2009/17.04.2009 PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.105
OF 2005 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 255 IPC
READ WITH 120(B) OF IPC. 258 IPC READ WITH 120(B)
IPC AND OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 259 IPC
READ WITH SECTION 120(B) IPC AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS
AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs.50,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 255 OF IPC READ WITH
SECTION 120(B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 258 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 120
(B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL
UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 259 IPC READ WITH SECTION 120(B) IPC. IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO
FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF
SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO
ACCUSED FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES ARE ORDERED TO
RUN CONCURRENTLY EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED
FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINE.
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is accused No.1 in S.C.No.105 of 2005, before the 35th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. By the order dated 15.04.2009, along with other accused, the appellant was also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as follows:
i) for the offence punishable under Section-255 of IPC, read with Section-120(B) of IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year;
ii) for the offence punishable under Section-258 of IPC, read with Section-120(B) of IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- 4 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months;
iii) for the offence punishable under Section-259 of IPC, read with Section-120(B) of IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. It was also held that the appellant was entitled for a set-off for a period from 10.04.1997 to 18.06.1997 and also for a period from 30.01.2006 to 16.04.2009 namely, in all 3 years, 4 months and 28 days.
4. Sri.Amar Correa, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not intend to pursue the appeal so far as the merits are concerned. He pleads only for a set-off.
5. The appeal was filed on 02.07.2011. By the order dated 17.08.2011, the sentence was suspended and 5 the appellant was enlarged on bail. Surety was offered on 14.08.2015. He was ultimately released only on 17.03.2017. Therefore, from the date of judgment itself, he is in custody for almost 8 years and he already had the benefit of set off for a period of 3 years, 4 months and 28 days as on the date of the judgment.
6. The aforesaid said facts and dates are not disputed by the learned Spl.PP appearing for the respondent - State.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, in terms of Section - 428 of Cr.P.C., since the appellant has already undergone the sentence including the default sentence, he shall be set at large forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE
JJ