R Murali S/O. Late Sri Ramanna vs S H Vijay Baskar Reddy S/O Late Sri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7156 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

 DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

              W.P.NO.105343/2021
BETWEEN :

R.MURALI S/O LATE SRI.RAMANNA
AGE 48 YEARS. OCC: EMPLOYEE IN KEB.
R/O SIDDALINGAPPA CHOWKI
OPP, BUS DEPOT QUARTERS GATE
RAJAJI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, 9TH WARD
TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI-583103.
                                      .... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.S.YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.GIRISH.V.BHAT., ADVOCATE)

AND :

S.H.VIJAY BASKAR REDDY
S/O LATE SRI.HANUMANTH REDDY
AGE:45 YEARS. OCC: PROPRIETOR ARVEE
ENTERPRISES, R/O VEVEKANANDA NAGAR
NEAR TSP EMPLOYEE PARK
TQ:HOSPETE, DIST:BALLARI-583103.
                                   .... RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS
DISPSNSED WITH)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 227 R/W
SEC 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SEEKING QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY
THE LEARNED IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE HOSPETE DATED 20.11.2021 AND
04.12.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5037/2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND FOR OTHER RELIEFS.
                               2




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

                         : ORDER :

Heard learned Senior counsel Sri.S.S.Yadrami.,

for the petitioner. Perused the materials on record.

2. The petitioner herein being the accused is

convicted for the offence punishable under Action 138

of N.I.Act by the trial Court in C.C.No.1094/2013 vide

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07.10.2021.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred an appeal in criminal appeal

No.5037/2021 before the learned III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at

Hospet). An application under Section 389(1) of

Cr.P.C was came to be filed for suspension of

sentence, pending appeal and release of the petitioner

on bail. The impugned order dated 20.11.2021 was

passed by the first appellate Court allowing the

application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C subject to

the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the

entire find amount of Rs.9,00,000/- before the trial

Court within 04.12.2021, failing which the order

allowing the said application will automatically stands

cancelled. It is stated that an application was filed for

extension of time for depositing fine amount, which

was came to be rejected by the trial Court. Thus, it is

the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the

trial Court has not considered the request made by

the petitioner herein, who is working as a lineman in

KEB and he is not in a position to deposit the fine

amount within short period of time. He would also

contend that Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C does not

mandate such deposit of entire fine amount. Anyhow,

the criminal appeal is pending before the first

appellate Court and the same is to be considered on

merits. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition for

setting aside the unreasonable condition imposed by

the trial Court for deposit of the entire fine amount

before the trial Court, while suspending the sentence.

4. Perused the materials on record.

5. The accused was convicted by the trial

Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act and fine amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was

imposed. When the appeal is preferred by the

accused, the impugned order was came to be passed,

on application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C,

directing the accused to deposit the entire fine

amount.

6. Considering the contention taken by the

petitioner, I have perused the impugned order

directing the appellant to deposit the entire fine

amount of Rs.9,00,000/-within a month ie., before

4.12.2021, which workout hardship against the

accused. However, the contention of the learned

senior counsel that the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence is to be suspended

without directing to deposit any portion of the fine

amount, also cannot be accepted. Hence, I am of the

opinion that, the impugned order passed by the trial

Court required modification. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following;

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order passed by the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hospet)

in criminal appeal No.5037/2021 directing to deposit

the entire fine amount of Rs.9,00,000/- before the

trial Court, within 04.12.2021 is set-aside.

The petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the

fine amount before the trial Court within 8 weeks

from today. Failing which, the suspension of sentence

ordered by the appellate Court stands cancelled.

At this stage, learned senior counsel submits

that the conviction warrant is already issued by the

trial Court against the petitioner. If the conviction

warrant is already issued, the same shall stands

stayed till disposal of the criminal appeal before the

trial Court subject to the condition of depositing 50%

of the fine amount.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AM/-