Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18781 Kant
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29460
CRL.RP No. 205 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 205 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. ALONA KITCHENETTE AND
INTERIORS PVT LTD.
2. SAJI JOSEPH
DIRECTOR
M/S ALONA KITCHENETTE AND
INTERIORS PVT LTD.
3. VINCENT JOSEPH
DIRECTOR
M/S ALONA KITCHENETTE AND
INTERIORS PVT LTD.
4. NIJAMOL SAJI JOSEPH
DIRECTOR
M/S ALONA KITCHENETTE AND
INTERIORS PVT LTD.
ALL HAVING OFFICE AT NO.471/1
Digitally signed by CARMELARAM GATE
SHAKAMBARI
CARMELARAM RAILWAY STATION
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ROAD, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 035
ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT NO.21
ALEEN VILLE, RADHA REDDY
LAYOUT, SARJAPURA ROAD
CARMELARAM P.O
BENGALURU - 560 035.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANTHAPADMANABHA G.N, ADV.)
AND:
M/S ALPLY AGENCIES
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29460
CRL.RP No. 205 of 2022
SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
JAYANTHINAGAR-RAMAMURTHY
NAGAR ROAD, PP MITRA SCHOOL
HORAMAVU, ENGALURU - 560 043.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LXXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL,
BENGALURU DATED 27.04.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.25133/2019 BY
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED NO.1 COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY FINE
OF RS.3,13,879/- IN DEFAULT THE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 SHALL
UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR, AN
AMOUNT OF RS.3,04,879/- SHALL BE PAID TO THE COMPLAINANT,
AS COMPENSATION U/S 357(1)(b) OF CR.P.C. OUT OF THE FINE
AMOUNT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,000/- SHALL BE REMITTED TO
THE STATE EX-CHEQUER, AS FINE AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVII
ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU DATED 09.04.2019
PASSED IN C.C.NO.51253/2016.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. Office objections are not complied with.
2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is
incorrect. Therefore, they are rejected accordingly.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DN
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!