Karnataka High Court
Bhavar Lal vs State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.897 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Bhavar Lal,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Javaharlal,
R/at No.703, Sharadha Devi Nagar,
2nd Stage, Bhogadi,
Mysore- 570022.
2. Ranjith Jain, Major,
S/o Bhavar Lal,
R/at No.703, Sharadha devi Nagar,
2nd Stage, Bhogadi,
Mysore- 570 022. .. Petitioners
( By Sri Sandeep Hegde, Advocate )
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Drugs Inspector,
Mysore Circle-I, Mysore,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court building,
Bangalore- 560001. .. Respondent
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397(1) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the
records and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned III Addl.Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Crl.A.No.133/2012
dated 07.08.2013 and the judgment and order passed by the
Crl.R.P.No.897/2013
2
learned III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore in
C.C.No.646/2006 dated 07.08.2012/12.11.2013 and acquit the
petitioners by allowing this revision petition in the interest of
justice and equity.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Orders
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners, who is appearing through Video conference
and the submission of learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent- State.
2. Both side submit that though this revision petition
was filed challenging the judgment of confirmation of
conviction of the present petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, however, filing of the
revision petition was premature since after remanding of
the matter by the lower Appellate Court, the trial Court
was yet to pass an order on the sentence for the
proven/confirmed guilt.
Crl.R.P.No.897/2013
Further submitting that it is for the said reason, the
petitioners seek permission to withdraw the case as it is
premature, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a
memo for withdrawal.
3. Perused the memo dated 30.09.2022 filed by the
petitioners. According to the petitioners, the present
revision petition is premature. However, they could able
to manage to delay the further proceedings in the criminal
case during the pendency of the present revision petition
for not less than a period of nine years. Since the original
criminal case is of the year 2006, the matter is sixteen
years old. Thus, the petitioners for the reasons best
known to them, have seen that the matter could not able
to reach its finality and have now sought for withdrawal of
the petition after sixteen years. Hence, it is not just to say
the permission to withdraw the petition be granted
simplicitor, but, with heavy cost.
Accordingly, the memo under consideration is
allowed in-part on a cost of `10,000/- payable by the
Crl.R.P.No.897/2013
present petitioners to the Legal Services Authority of
Mysuru District and filing a compliance affidavit along with
receipt before the trial Court within ten days from today.
Subject to payment of cost and filing a compliance affidavit
along with memo, the present Criminal Revision Petition
stands disposed of as not pressed.
It is made clear that the trial Court shall take
appropriate steps to recover the cost imposed today if not
paid within the time immediately after the tenth day from
today and to report the same to this Court.
Registry to transmit a copy of today's order along
with trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court records
forthwith to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bk/
