Karnataka High Court
S Madhusudan S/O Late S Iyengar vs Vishnu Arya on 19 March, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE E DATED "THIS THE 19TH DAY 01-" MAI2(}jIji'::2;'G(."i8.:" E R THE J'u'S"'FI"'E INA ' BETWEEN 1.
'S.Madhusudan, Es/o (Late) s.Iycngar, % Ex.D'ircctor of M,'"s-- é*.r_.;c.-:*: 3;: ; C;::mn1unications.L_iIJ1itt::1',' " "
Plot No. 101, 6*" Majn§.R&a'd§ C 6th CI'QSS"Rdad--, Iv1a11éshwa1'-SE11, » j- Bwzgalcre-136O A V * E Sf-0 (Eats) Ex. Djrccto1'-of---'M,/ s" -'A1160
-A mmirmjnicati-rxrrs Liiliiiffifi, 30.468, 6."? Cross. 2fld=B1ock, Nagar'; ..... .. e , Bmig§1c1jc--560 032.. . : '. etiticncrs '(By Patii, Advocate] ~+_Vishni1..AIya.
8-1; 439, Janakpuri, ._ -
KNEW Delhi-110058. _ : Rc§pt;__d__.nt _ This C1'iII1iI1a.1 Revision Petition is filed undersection ' 397 r/w 401 C',-r.P.C praying tc set _aside' th.ei~vJ'tidg;"u1ent and sentence of the Sessions Judge, Fast ~QUilIte.VII, Bangalore in Cr1.A.No.610/2004 dated 528- 10--'2G05"*' Judgment and sentence of the XVI Vir1..__ C. C.No.35O 12 / 2002 dated 22--O?»2O(A)4.'_4 This petition coming on 3 Court, made the foI1owing:r At the time oiiisisrisg tl1c'1*ex(ision petition it is seen from the._0-d..1i..she'.».t '111aL;t;ai1;ed, L13', the trial Cccrt tn-"t 0'3 13;7?--2§Zi'O{i, ..ti1e1aceuised'"ffied"'an application under Section P.W.1 and another applicationd'di1i1de1*i -311 Cr.P.C. to lead defence evidence 'I'11eV'ease stood' adjourned to 15-7-2004 f_r _.1i1_g ohieeticns a1. 1 en '.5='.7=2004 accused was "resert an' were ffled and the matter was stood hearing of the application on 16-7-2004. 16vs«7-.2hV()04 accused addressed arguments and the .. Adlliastterddwas posted for orders to 20-7-2004. .LL, ' h'nitt"d 1- t L11 'ccused took the date {'0 I--1 9"?' L as 27-7-2004 instead Of 20-7-2004 on which day the trial 5LDs;»\sii.I¢------
Court has passed an order on the two applioatiozisffled by the petitioners/accused, rejecting the appheatioiifi tinder Section 311 for recalling P.W.1 V"
' 2-_V__<,_ was alhwed. On the ve1y dayvitiietrial the defence of the accusefiexas nili" vvas absent. Arguinents are theVAco111p1ainant was also absent, 'Vito 21='.7a2OO4 on 1_x,r]_M_r;" day colnpiainant were absent. xiwas not ready the case was edjeméiieeyetttees22d;*r..2oo4. On 22-7-2004 both the accused'-and the eerxlgjiaiilailt were absent, But 11o.=v.ve1*, the ; jnd_or1-_ent-- came to be pronounced eo'_"v1'-ting the se"tencing him for an offence punishable A of the N.I. Act.
.3'-.V"l"he absence of both the parties right from 2 ., '2G»7.-2004 and even on the d_a_e of nonouneeinent of th"
j'1n.g111e11t i.e. 22~7-2004 reveals that they had mistakenly it ttteken the date as 27--7..2oo4 instead of 20-7-2004. Hence anpl ca on e_nder Section 311 fez' le;"'c.1-Hg ('3-.e1-._ 1eevv.£i3'rie:ie11ce*-._ co.r1victiefip;1.iA'pea11d sentence passed _against 11 the reading of the order sheet reveals 'L"__t .'11eug'a__ the application filed by the petit.ione1_'s_/ accused . e'..de.1.,e 11-13 been allowed a fair o_pportu___nity beeifi aI'"'1"'ded t" 11i111 te lead .\.1idenee:V"a11d' 'establish his 'ease, 'I «tea The said fact though a1'gued_ o"i'e.u:" ~ _t11e nest ~ appeimta _ Court 110 finding has been on the ea111e."j,"_as such' since there is no opportunity. giiren to the petitioners ,1 aeeussed, 1_..feel--.V the ordef ' Cef conviction and sentence 11y, "11"i "idem. _.Qf_._1L1.i.IE.tO be set aside the'7a1attei*_ie be"'i"e1:i1ai1ded t' the t1'i*" Court for being of recording the evidence of §.'..,-(.'.--L1_Sf_!d. sueh the» ~ ..v'I'i1e,1"etrisio11 petition? is aiiewed; The -rd..r of petiti¢)i1erefi/accused for an offence punishable under :~T_"' 138 of the N.I. Act passed by the trial Court as iaffirrned D ' the i""*t a"pe..a.e Vet. .. is set aside. The __!J.1 matter is remanded to the trial Court W1 1 a d 'eetieii to proceed with the case from the stage of recordiijgeof the evidence of the petitioners/ accused. " the petitioners] accused submit that he wi11;iec.éll§1,g"".,. of P.W .1 who is 1')1T';S61"1t1" o"t of coLui'¥i'y} "iris de..,o1ca1"'--« that the petitio11e1's /' accused SI'1.":lV.H 'I"1'Ot aslefoxfd4;4ecéJ1h'1g::of P.W.1. The application fi1edv'Vii1_Vi;de;f Sectioji' before this Ho11'b1e Court is to Court for necessary orders. Exe111pt1o1- 13e....__,,_o_11-;d 1,. "PI; ';51,* co:-.1plaina:mt from Crgac.
as
3 mm: Crl.R.P. 190612665" 6 11-4-2003 _ éaanm are same 6 r""anded 6 "*6 'V"6a§§'6'no féir..dp;$oI'iiunity was given m the "etiticners *" ";6="a.s}..'V6.ji*::'s.r"u';""--11Lcx':A'.A It"}W"s also LIL- _pp.1ca....Q.; "leg ..,y}t.'4'.':e-;:_':¢6.',.r.'..1."i..{.'I1ers U/S. 391 C3r.P.C.,.before his Cqurt should be dec-1;;--_ _y 1:11.. t_._l 4-... "' that stigh ' 1v',;_ '6 have "'irst Appcfiate
- _-._..d. by ....c ' As such, the order dated 19.63.2663 fa "extent". directing the trial court to pass I":
3"'d"a y the order dated 19.n3,2ooa,m¢ 156666