Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9661
CRL.A No. 1768 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAGADISH
S/O GOPALA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YAERS
R/AT BALEPETE, M.G.ROAD,
RAMANAGAR TOWN,
RAMANAGAR-562159.
2. SRI GOPALA G
S/O LATE GURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.777, WARD NO.7,
NEAR BASAVANAGUDI,
BALAPET, RAMANAGAR TOWN-562159.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally (BY SMT. RATTIHALLI GEETA VEERANNA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
signed by
LAKSHMI T AND:
Location:
High Court 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka MAGADI P.S.,
REP. BY S.P.P.HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.449(ii) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.MIS.NO.108/2018 BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGAR AND
ALSO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN S.C.NO.27/2015 WHICH IS
CLOSED ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9661
CRL.A No. 1768 of 2019
JUDGE, RAMANAGARA AND EXAMINE THE SAME. SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2019 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.108/2018.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the case was called twice, there is no
representation for the appellants.
2. This appeal is preferred in the year 2019. So
far the office objections are not complied.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated
23.04.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Ramanagara in Crl. Misc No.108/2018. Vide
impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has directed
the appellants to deposit a fine amount of Rs.50,000/-
each within 15 days from the date of the said order, failing
which the said amount to be recovered as arrears of land
revenue.
NC: 2024:KHC:9661
4. An application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.
by appellant No.1 for the release of a vehicle/Tata sumo
bearing registration No.KA-05-B-7031 to his interim
custody was allowed by the learned Magistrate imposing
conditions. Appellant No.2, father of appellant No.1
offered himself as surety for the release of vehicle. Since
appellant No.1 in his chief examination stated that he has
sold the vehicle without obtaining permission of the Court,
a separate Criminal Misc case was directed to be
registered by the learned Sessions Judge on 13.03.2018,
against appellant Nos.1 and 2. Further, vide impugned
order dated 23.04.2019, they were directed to deposit a
fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each.
5. As per conditions imposed while releasing the
vehicle to the interim custody of appellant No.1, there was
a specific direction not to alienate or change the identity of
the vehicle. Appellant No.2 executed the surety bond for
Rs.2,00,000/-. Inspite of executing the indemnity bond
and surety bond and undertaking to abide by conditions
NC: 2024:KHC:9661
imposed by the Court, the appellants have violated the
conditions. The learned Sessions Judge has reduced the
amount and directed the appellants to deposit a fine
amount of Rs.50,000/- each. I see no illegality in the
impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB
