Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravi Kumar V vs Sri K G Hanumanthaih on 4 January, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:369
CRL.P No. 12369 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12369 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVI KUMAR V.,
S/O LATE H.S. VENKAT RAO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.96/97,
1ST FLOOR, K.R. LAYOUT,
J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K.G. HANUMANTHAIH
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.202/2,
8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPETE,
Digitally BENGALURU-560018.
signed by
SUMA ...RESPONDENT
Location: (SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
DATED 20.06.2023 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.25114/2023, ON THE
FILE OF THE LXXIV ACC AND SJ (CCH-75), MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:369
CRL.P No. 12369 of 2023
ORDER
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case,
issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the
LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-75), Mayo
Hall Unit, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the First
Appellate Court') rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
herein for extension of time to deposit 20% of the fine amount
as ordered by the First Appellate Court in Crl. Appeal
No.25114/2023.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
faced the trial before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mayo hall, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the
Trial Court') for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') in
C.C. No.52332/2022 and the Trial Court vide judgment dated
NC: 2024:KHC:369
20.03.2023, convicted the petitioner-accused for the said
offence and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.12,10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
approached the First Appellate Court in an appeal filed under
Section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.' for brevity). Along with the appeal, he also filed an
application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking suspension
of sentence. The First Appellate Court vide order dated
21.04.2023, suspended the sentence of fine passed by the Trial
Court in C.C. No.52332/2022 and imposed the condition on the
petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount in the Trial Court
within 60 days from the date of the said order. However, the
petitioner has not deposited the said amount. On the other
hand, he has filed an application for extension of time which
came to be rejected by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is
NC: 2024:KHC:369
clear that the First Appellate Court has rightly imposed the
condition on the petitioner herein to deposit 20% of the fine
amount as prescribed under Section 148 of the N.I. Act. As per
the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the N.I. Act,
60 days' time from the date of the order is prescribed for
depositing the fine amount and another 30 days could be
extended by the Court, if any sufficient cause is shown.
Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly rejected the
application for extension of time. There is no flaw in the
impugned order. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that though the petitioner has not been able
to accumulate the money within 60 days or 90 days from the
date of the impugned order, now he has already purchased a
demand draft for Rs.2,42,000/- on 04.12.2023 and if he is
permitted to deposit the same, it will not prejudice the case of
the respondent. As stated above, there is no provision in the
N.I. Act for extending more time by the First Appellate Court
except as provided under the provisions of Section 148 of the
N.I. Act. However, as a special case and as the petitioner has
also obtained similar order in a connected matter i.e.,
Crl.P.No.12477/2023, if time is extended for payment of the
NC: 2024:KHC:369
fine amount as ordered by the First Appellate Court, it will not
prejudice the case of the respondent. Even otherwise, the
amount is not deposited that can be recoverable under Section
431 read with Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Such being the case, I
am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for
extension of time. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by
the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
(CCH-75), Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner for extension of
time is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall deposit
the fine amount as ordered by the First Appellate
Court in Crl.A. No.25114/2023 within one week
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMA
