Karnataka High Court
Sri.Manjunathagouda S/O ... vs Saroja W/O Manjunath Hullikashi on 7 June, 2023
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101700 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101700 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATHAGOUDA,
S/O. HANUMAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DIDAGUR- 581148,
TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAROJA W/O. MANJUNATH HULLIKASHI,
(AFTER SECOND MARRIAGE SAROJA
W/O. SANTOSH HOMBARADI),
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NAVANAGAR, HANGAL-511104,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
KATTIMANI ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.09 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
11:08:07 -0700
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2019
PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-C. CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.10/2019 TO FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 101700 of 2019
ORDER
Heard Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri R.H.Angadi, learned counsel
for the respondent. Perused the records on
admission.
2. The present petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"To quash the order dated 29.06.2019
passed in Criminal Appeal No.10/2019 on the file
of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Haveri
produced at Annexure-C. Consequently restore
the Criminal Appeal No.10/2019 to file of the Prl.
District & Sessions Judge, Haveri."
3. Though the matter is listed for admission
by consent of the parties, it is taken up for final
disposal.
4. Petitioner suffered an order of conviction
for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.63/2017 after
contest.
CRL.P No. 101700 of 2019
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, he
filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal
Appeal No.10/2019.
6. Learned District Judge while suspending
the sentence, passed an order that the appellant
shall deposit 10% i.e. a sum of Rs.30,500/- before
the trial Court while suspending the sentence using
his discretion. Said amount is not deposited and
therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed for
default noting absence of counsel for petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contended that dismissal of a criminal
appeal for default is impermissible under the
criminal jurisprudence and therefore, sought for
allowing the petition.
8. Sri R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for the
respondent however submits that since the condition
is violated, learned District Judge was right in
revoking the order of suspension of sentence and
CRL.P No. 101700 of 2019
dismissing the appeal noting the fact that there was
no representation on behalf of the appellant for
long.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the
parties, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
10. Admittedly, petitioner herein has not
complied the condition for suspension of sentence.
However mere non-compliance of the condition
would not entitle the learned District Judge to
dismiss the criminal appeal for default. Appellate
Court should have secured the presence of the
petitioner by coercive methods and proceeded with
the case in accordance with law.
11. Dismissal of the criminal appeal for default
is alien to the criminal jurisprudence. Learned Judge
in the first appellate Court ought to have afforded
sufficient opportunity for the appellant by securing
presence of the appellant by taking coercive steps
CRL.P No. 101700 of 2019
and proceeded with the case in accordance with law.
Hence the order of dismissal of the appeal for non-
prosecution has ended in miscarriage of justice
calling for interference by this Court in this petition.
12. If the petitioner has not deposited the
amount as ordered by the learned Judge in the first
appellate Court for suspension of sentence, the
sentence ordered passed by the trial Magistrate
should have been put to execution and appeal should
have been decided on merits.
13. Further, Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to
sum of Rs.30,000/- already deposited, the petitioner
would deposit Rs.30,000/- more for contesting the
appeal as against the direction of this Court to
deposit 50% of the fine amount.
14. His submission is placed on record and
permitted to deposit another Rs.30,000/- less
already amount deposited before the trial Court.
CRL.P No. 101700 of 2019
15. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed.
Matter remanded to the first appellate
Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Parties shall appear before the first
appellate Court without further notice on
24.06.2023 and proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
The amount in deposit before the trial
Court pursuant to the interim order
granted by this Court shall be taken note
of for considering the direction of
suspension of sentence and in addition to
the same, the petitioner shall deposit
Rs.30,000/- for him to obtain the benefit
of suspension of sentence. D eposit of
balance amount of Rs.30,000/- is a
condition precedent for further
participation in the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
