Nataraj S/O Prabhulingappa Unkal vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3195 Kant

                           -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100169 OF 2021

BETWEEN
1.    NATARAJ S/O PRABHULINGAPPA UNKAL
      AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
      R/O. DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI
      TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD

2.    RAJENDRA S/O. PRABHULINGAPPA UNAKAL
      AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
      R/O. DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI
      TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD
                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT,
DHARWAD-580011.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2021 MADE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.14/2018 PASSED BY THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND
CONFIRM THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
02.06.2017 MADE IN C.C. NO.948/2001 PASSED BY THE JMFC-I
COURT, HUBBALLI.
                                 -2-



      THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioners.

2. The learned counsel has also filed a memo for

converting the revision into appeal. This revision petition is

filed against the order passed in Criminal Appeal

No.14/2018 by the V-Additional District and Sessions,

Judge, Dharwad, whereby he has reversed the order of

acquittal and convicted the revision petitioners/accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325 and

504 of IPC. But the matter was adjourned for hearing on

sentence and since parties were absent, he has issued

notice to the counsel for accused/respondents therein and

also issued NBW to the accused/revision petitioners herein.

This order is being challenged in this revision petition.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted here that there

is no sentence passed by the Court so as to consider the

matter either in revision or an appeal. The question of

staying the conviction is unwarranted as there is no

provision for staying the conviction and what can be

stayed is the suspension of sentence. But in the instant

case, the sentence is not yet imposed and before

pronouncing of orders on sentence, the revision petitioners

have filed this revision petition. Hence, the petition itself is

not maintainable. The remedy of the revision petitioners is

to appear before the Appellate Court and argue on

sentence and then the Appellate Court is required to pass

an appropriate order on sentence. As such, the petition is

devoid of any merits and needs to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

4. In view of disposal of the matter, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE yan