Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmi vs Sri Basavaraju on 15 April, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.688/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI,
W/O MUNIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT MARALUSIDDESHWARA TEMPLE,
M.G.ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]
AND:
SRI BASAVARAJU,
S/O PEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT ASHWATHASHETTY HOUSE,
2ND CROSS, ASHOKA NAGARA,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI.
... RESPONDENT
[RESPONDENT - SERVED]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO REDUCE THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT FROM
50% TO 20% OF THE FINE AMOUNT IN THE ORDER DATED
19.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.15005/2020.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to reduce the deposit amount from 50% to 20% of the
fine amount in the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the
learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli
and pass such other order as this Court deems fit regarding
imposition of condition while suspending the sentence.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent
herein had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
invoking the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short). The learned
Magistrate vide judgment dated 05.11.2019 convicted the
petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the NI Act and directed to pay the fine of Rs.2,50,000/- within
three months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of three months. The said order has been challenged in
the criminal appeal and the learned Appellate Court while
suspending the sentence passed an order directing the
appellant/petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the fine amount
within 15 days before the Trial Court from the date of the order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that he has got merits in the appeal and
imposition of condition to pay 50% of the fine amount causes
prejudice to the interest of the petitioner herein. It is also
contended that order to deposit 50% of the fine amount was
made on 19.03.2020 and due to Covid-19, the limitation of NI
Act was extended from time to time. The learned counsel would
contend that the petitioner has been suffering from medical
ailments and having severe neck and spinal cord problem. In
support of his contentions he has produced the document at
Annexure-B and submits that it is very difficult for the petitioner
to pay 50% of the fine amount. The learned counsel would
contend that this Court while considering the stay application,
directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount and accordingly 20%
of the fine amount is paid. Hence, requests the Court to reduce
the same to 20%.
4. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent, the
respondent did not choose to appear before the Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also on perusal of the impugned order, the Appellate Court
has exercised its discretion while suspending the sentence.
When the appeal is filed and when the grounds are urged before
the Appellate Court questioning the order of conviction and
sentence, the Appellate Court ought to have exercised its
discretion judiciously and hence it requires interference of this
Court.
6. Having taken note of the reasons assigned in the
order and also the grounds urged in the petition, it is appropriate
to reduce the same from 50% to 25%. The petitioner has
already deposited 20% of the fine amount and hence the
petitioner is directed to pay the remaining 5% of the amount
within four weeks from today.
7. With this modification, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
