IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRiL'-§Q€i8:A.V
BEFORE E i it '
THE HOI'~1"i3LE MR. duff?-IeEE.sd'jjj*'A: ~ _
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIQI-isdi«os.149is
BETWEEN it A i it
Rafiq, _
S/o Bashasab Surarigi,
Age: M 'or, ~ - r
Resident of Hangal, _
Now R/'at La_xm_eshwar,- 1
Talukz Sifiraiiialtii. =: -7=..:_...§Petitioner
{By Sri. }{a,,M~ai_'sj Dan'_1ofisr," Advocate}
The State of 'I{arnafa1:.a","
At the ifis_tai*1ee.of ' V
Dmg _Inspeet_or," V
Dist1iet,...Hubli. : Respondent
' .:.V'(ByA ivztiriisald K. Navalgimath, HCGP.,)
V Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 v~._'Cr-.P'. C. praying to set aside the Judgment and
sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Haveri, in
is Q;-1.A;No.24/2005 dated 3-3-2005 and Judgment and
,_sei_1tence of the C.J. (Sr.Dr1.) 85 JMFC., Hangal in
e.c.No.274_/2002 dated 13-3-2005.
This petition coming on for hearing, this d*y ti?
Court, made the following:
V
'£'Q'L"LU-Qt'/L,
sentence is confirmed in (1'Ti.A.I
dated 3-8-2005.
ORDER
The petitioner] accused has made
d . .
eci.rIs4c_n 11
under Sections 18(c) R/wk S_ectio’11.._V.”27(b)(fi}V-do
Cosmetics Act, 1940 ( fOI;H0St:1′(3!’_1x2, Act’) and
sentenced to underv §.5′:’R5I~’,V:t’o1j p.e1§iod_»of one year and to
of four _’._._i”1ev:’: isi for an ofimce
punishable. IV’/W Sec.28 of Drugs Act
and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
…u._..r _o: and he is further convicted for
an-3;pi”fence pme.”t_’f_i”-“bl” Wider Seen 1
‘ Viethe and is sentence to undergo RI for one year
0 * end to fine of Rs. 1,0001- in default to: undergo 3.1
fof tnonths by judgment dated 18–34005 passed in
1’ 11¢: Probation
2.The petitioner submits that he is a f1rsta”:ofI’endcr;
that there is no other criminal case pending:
and tho.
-concurrently. He regrets for the conduct for wh.ich’—-, ]
he has been charged; that Qresentiy’ he
in an ice factory in Lakshmeshwar, is owned by his
father and he hasg.4_._Rabar:1don5edV.jjthe job of dispensing
f\’I”‘Il” 1″Ii’Il:\ 1’I’IU
Jiigfisixud u.u.u 11 ea {Gnu
minor Chi1f1–Ft31’ER1_1Q hls father who is aged 78
years 68, are also dependent
upon him aI’i:l:’v-..r1one to take care of the family
2.____’I___’|_.._ _ _
L110 133 15
‘ Vlthat ‘ysould keep good behaviour as directed by this
”
ii into account the averments made in the
it ‘ap–o1ication and also the decision rendered in the case of
Union of main Vs. Krishanpal Singh and another (1979
I
j3_,rQ_1L_A_Dlvn_n; V
posed. a, to
Crl.L.J.407); and as the petitioner/aceused first
offender, I feel that the benefit of Section
could be extended to the petitioner/.ae_eL1ee§f1:’
eondiuene. Henm, the fe}1″‘w”ii1g: A
The revision petition ‘The order of
conviction for the ~ he is charged are
confirmed; The sentence.’ –inip.)eed fer me offences for
which he qeei’ iaeide and in lieu the
Detitioner–e..i.e- on probation on he
exeeetiegeieeeeereeiRe.25e,ooo/– with one surety in like
sum Vigood behavior for a period -f _11e
grew’ and ieimier undertaliin” t” und”1′-“” us sen enee
–by~–the trial Court in the event of any breach of
of the bond. The bond shall be executed
“period of one month from today.
uuHSbb/-