Sri H K S Shastry vs Smt M Mohan Kumari
2022 Latest Caselaw 3309 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1480 OF 2019
                   C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1469 OF 2019

In Crl.RP.No.1480/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri H.K.Shastry,
S/o Late H.Krishna Shastry,
Aged about 82 years,
R/at "Ambika" No.21,
26 t h Cross, Banashankari II Stag e,
Beng aluru-560070.
                                           ...Petitioner
(By Sri Keshav R. Agnihotri, Advocate)

AND:

Sri Dr.S.Mahalingam,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o Late V.Shanmug am,
R/at No.39, IAS Officers Colony,
16 t h Main 5 t h "B" Cross,
BTM II Stag e, Bengaluru-560070.
                                         ...Respondent
(By Sri B.J.Mahesh, Advocate)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the impug ned judgment dated 21.08.2019 in
Crl.A.No.65/2018 passed by the LXVIII Additional City
Civil   and   Sessions  judge  (CCH-69)     Beng aluru
dismissing the appeal filed under Section 374(3) of
                           :: 2 ::


Cr.P.C.,   and    thereby    may   be   acquitted   of
accused/petitioner in judgment of conviction and
sentence in C.C.No.26570/2014 dated 17.05.2017
passed by the XVI ACMM, Beng aluru and consequently
dismiss the complaint of the respondent and allow this
revision petition with cost.

In Crl.RP.No.1469/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri H.K.S.Shastry,
S/o Late H.Krishna Shastry,
Aged about 82 years,
R/at "Ambika" No.21,
26 t h Cross, Banashankari II Stag e,
Beng aluru-560070.
                                           ...Petitioner
(By Sri Keshav R. Agnihotri, Advocate)

AND:

Smt. M.Mohan Kumari,
W/o. Dr.S.Mahaling am,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.39, IAS Officers Colony,
16 t h Main 5 t h "B" Cross,
BTM II Stag e, Bengaluru-560070.
                                         ...Respondent
(By Sri B.J.Mahesh, Advocate)

     This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the impug ned judgment dated 21.08.2019 in
Crl.A.No.118/2018 passed by the LXVIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-69) Bengaluru
dismissing the appeal filed under Section 374(3) of
Cr.P.C.,   and   thereby   may   be   acquitted   of
accused/petitioner in judgment of conviction and
sentence in C.C.No.26569/2014 dated 17.05.2017
passed by the XVI ACMM, Beng aluru and consequently
                                :: 3 ::


dismiss the complaint of the respondent and allow this
revision petition with cost.

     These Criminal Revision Petitions coming on for
final disposal this d ay, the Court mad e the following:

                           ORDER

These two revision petitions are disposed of

by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Keshav R Agnihotri, learned

counsel for the common petitioner in both the

cases and Sri B.J.Mahesh for the respondent.

3. The petitioner suffered judgments of

conviction in two cases namely CC 26569/2014

and 26570/2014 on the file of XVI ACMM,

Bengaluru, for the offence under section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act. Then he

preferred two appeals to the court of Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge. As the appeals

were preferred after expiry of limitation period, he

made applications under section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The :: 4 ::

appellate court did not accept the reasons given

for the delay and dismissed the applications and

consequently the appeals also. Hence, these two

revision petitions.

4. Though it is submitted by Sri B.J.Ramesh

that the petitioner did not come up with sufficient

cause for condonation of delay and that was the

reason for the applications under section 5 of the

Limitation Act being dismissed by the appellate

court, it is to be stated now that the delay in one

case was 210 days and in the other was 216 days.

The appellate court could have noticed that the

petitioner had suffered judgment of conviction in

relation to offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. In his wisdom that

too when conviction judgments were challenged

the appellate court Judge could have taken a

lenient view to condone the delay in order to

examine the appeals on their merits. The delay :: 5 ::

was not so inordinate not to be condoned. If the

matter had been decided on merits, the interest of

the respondent would not have been affected in

any way. In this view, I find that these two

petitions are to be allowed.

5. Sri B.J.Mahesh at this juncture submits

that the petitioner was directed to deposit a

certain sum of money pursuant to the order

passed by the appellate court while suspending the

sentence. It is the submission of Sri Mahesh that

the respondent be permitted to withdraw the said

amount subject to result in the appeal.

6. I find merit in his submission. The

respondents may be permitted to withdraw the

said sum subject to the condition that they should

execute an indemnity bond. In this view, the

following :

ORDER

(a) Revision Petitions are allowed. :: 6 ::

(b) The orders dated 21.8.2019 in

Criminal Appeals 65/2018 and

118/2018 are set aside.

(c) The applications filed by the

petitioner in the two appeals under

section 5 of the Limitation Act are

allowed on cost of Rs.1000/- in each

case. Delay is condoned. Cost shall

be paid to the Advocates Welfare

Fund within two weeks from today.

Receipts shall be produced before

the appellate court.

(d) The appeals are restored to the file

of the appellate court. Both the

cases are remanded to the appellate

court for disposal in accordance with

law.

(e) The parties shall appear before the

appellate court on 21.03.2022.

:: 7 ::

Respondents herein are permitted to withdraw

the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuan t

to the order passed by the appellate court by

executing an indemnity bond undertaking that they

shall repay the entire amount withdrawn by them

in case the petitioner succeeds in the two appeals.

It is submitted by the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has been taken to

custody. Since the order now passed revives the

order of suspension of sentence passed by the

appellate court, the petitioner who is said to be in

custody shall be released forthwith in connection

with both the cases, if his presence is not

necessary in any other case. The appellate court

may take fresh bail bonds from the petitioner.

sd/-

JUDGE

ckl/-