M/S Shridhar Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 4051 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.553/2012


BETWEEN:

1.     M/S SHRIDHAR SHETTY,
       S/O. MAHALINGA SHETTY,
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
       R/AT YAMINI NILAYA,
       NEAR MUTTU RAILWAY GATE,
       MANGALPADY,
       KASARGOD,
       KERALA.

2.     MR RITESH SHETTY
       S/O SHRIDHAR SHETTY
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       R/AT YAMINI NILAYA,
       NEAR MUTTU RAILWAY GATEMANGALPADY,
       KASARGOD
       KERALA.
                                   ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                                 2

HIGH COURT BUILIDINGS,
BANGALORE.
                                                 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 24.06.2005 IN C.C.NO.4569/2004 BY
THE J.M.F.C.(III COURT), MANGALORE AND THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2012 IN CRL.
APPEAL NO.238/2005 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND ACQUIT THEM
OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH THEY WERE CONVICTED
THE COURTS.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
                             ORDER

The present revision petition is filed challenging the

order in C.C. No.4569/2004 on the file of the Court of

J.M.F.C. (III Court), Mangalore, which is confirmed in

Crl.A. No.238/2005 passed by the Court of the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, D. K., Mangalore.

2. Heard Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., learned

counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri. V. S.

Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent and perused the records.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The revision petitioners/accused persons were tried for

the offences punishable under Sections 186, 504 and 506

read with Section 34 of IPC in C.C. No.4569/2004 on the

file of the Court of J.M.F.C. (III Court), Mangalore by order

dated 24.06.2005, the learned Magistrate after convicting

the accused granted probation to accused persons by

directing them to execute a bond for their good behavior in

a sum of Rs.5,000/- each for a period of two years.

4. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel

appearing for the revision petitioner submits that such a

bond was executed without prejudice to the right of the

accused persons and conviction order was challenged in

Crl.A. No.238/2005. It is found from the records that the

learned judge in the First Appellate Court has dismissed

the Crl.A. No.238/2005 by order dated 16.03.2012 and

confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. The present revision petition came to be filed

challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate as

well the learned judge in the First Appellate Court.

6. Since the period of two years has already

elapsed and bond has been successfully adhered to by the

revision petitioners, there is no question of the State

proceeding against the revision petitioners. As such, since

the order of the learned Magistrate has already complied,

the present revision petition has remained only academic.

Perused revision grounds. No legal infirmity or patent

factual defects or error of jurisdiction is noticed in the

impugned judgments especially having regard to the scope

of the revisional jurisdiction. As such, pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS