IN ‘THE E~IIGI~~l COURT OI’ KARNA’I’A.KA AT BAN GALORE
DATED ‘l’HiS TIMIE 03″”-3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20,10.»
BEFO RE
THE HON’BL}’:3 MR. JUSTECE3 K.N.KEsx~1AvAi${ARA$fA§§;x
cRL.A.No.56V-5201-0. A
BETWEEN: M S
1 ASHOKA 13 H
S /0 H HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45.YEARS—— _ ”
BACHENAHATTY H ‘ 1.
MAGADI ‘rA_L,,UK ” ‘
.ivBAv.s–c§ga;Loi5<i:v';)13fi*RicT " V
2 'R_AN4GAS\R;'A;;'.!EYS»V' __
s'/Q 'CI~ll£«2KA«.RA_N€_x GOWDA
AG 1313 A.BO'U'I"37'YEARS
~ –. R/A N0. 10; BACHENAHA'I'TI
MA.GAD1"-'rA,LUK
EBANGALORE RURAL DIS'I'RiC'i'
… APPEILLANTS
sat: .3§£§.1;\iAIaAYANA ADV. FOR M /SA N N ASSOCEATES)
AND'; A
STATEC BY CHiCKPAI1'.'l' POI,iCE
REP BY PUBLIC I7'ROSIEZCU"E"OR
SESSIONS COURT, BANGALORE
RECSPONE)I*ZN'I'
5'?
‘X
[By Sri : B.BA.},AKR.lSHNA§ HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S449 CR.P.C BY ‘I..”r’I.I:’-44.AD,V.,
FOR THI: APPELLAN’l’S PRAYING THAT ‘FH1S._ j 1I~H_I.0I».I1i~I3I;I.a:
COURT MAY B131 PLEASEI) TO SET ASlDE_;”1.’HE:”–E:I’xiT£’i}”2Eg
PROCEEDINGS ISSUED ACAII_\IS’.Ij THI;
APPELLANTS/SURETIES IN C.MIS..NQ.3442/OSEFROM.THE”» ”
XXXJII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SEZSSION AND ..1DI;_-SEJVAND
SPECIAL JDUGE [NDPS) BANGALOI_2’E.*C’ISiC»F?RODUC,E.D’€F;S
PER ANNEXURE–A AND: ON 7__Tl*’!_E3 S’E_I?.E§£”JC3’E’I*}
DEPOSFFING AMOUNT ‘W’H,{CH *..iS VP§€Oi)U«CEI}: AT!’
ANNEXUREVC AND RELEASiNGI.THE1Vi._'[‘OC_.SU’RETY SHIP
FROM ACCUSED NO.2. ANITTQ .QRANT._C0STi’: OF THIS
PETITEON.
THIS APPEAL Cic)’%II/I’II\’IS7OI\I§C§,H.A’I)MISSIoN THIS
DAY THE COURT DE~£;}’.fEIRED_”.T}{E} FOLLOWING:
in”‘*t<_E_'1iS_ under Section 449 of Cr.P.C.,
pf§€itiOE1€fI'S._VV}1Q, are Sureiiies 1 and 2 for accused
» 'Sp*ec_:iaE C.C.N0.4I/O6 on the file of 33*" Add}.
Sessions Judge, Bangaiore. have Sought.
for" Seittairig aide the entire proceedings initiated against
2 them in C.MiSe.No.3442/2008.
H The appeliantis Stood Sureiies for accused No.2
‘ before the Court beiow. Accused No.2 is Charge Sheeted
for the offences punislraable under Sections
21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. During the t1’iai~«’.oi’.tr}?i.:ei’cas’e.M’
accused No.2 absconded and f2?iilec1″‘t.oy_
court below. Inspite of isst2_an<:_.e Oflv"jplflCif14ba.'il€1.b.l'€-.
warrant. his presence co1.1'i'ecl:VV:"'1not V
those circumsta11ces':;..ghe iorfleiiveldllythe surety
bonds executecl by them to
pay the bor;'1d"ar'r1ou:1t1t the recovery of
the same. "After coming to know of
the i'ssu.e' of .th.e]"appella1it,s appeared before the
court be1.gmr,Valnd"" for time to pay the penalty.
sLtbseq_i;_erat.ly the appellants failed to pay the
' and later they filed application under
'Slectiov1i Cr.P.C. seeking remission of portion of
the {hie amount.
Vf3. By order dated 5.41.2008. though the learned trial
judge posteci the case for ob3’e.ctions of the prosecution
on the application filed by the appellants for remission,
,~.
simultaneously ordered issue of FLW. The said order
dated 5.4.2008 directing issue of FLW without disposing
of the application under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C..,’§ was
challenged by the appellants before this courtj”by”y”fi:ling
Crl.R.P.705/O8. T he said petition came
by this court on 1.7.2008 hQld’ii’–1g no it
justification to interfere with the
learned Sessions Judge. lAft:ert.yreceip.t. of the
order passed in Crl=.R.P.DJo’§7t)5/VHS, learned’lSessions
Judge ‘F’LW_ At that stage, the
appellants have this appeal.
4. is «.T_l”ie only content.ion urged by the learned Advocate
– Afvtlr’ the procedure adopted by the
Judge in directing FLW without
dis.pos_i’ng.§lA.lthe application filed by the appellants under
..Sectio’n;446[3) for remission of the portion of the fine
‘~_a’rn–ount. is bad in law and the learned Sessions Judge
%tV,/’
ought not to l”J.dV€ issued FLW without disposing of the
application filed under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C.
5. Having regard to the fact that. the
by these appellants to the _order
directing issue of FLW against
filing an application undei*..:Secti0n’ 41-<i'6{3).jl*taiiing':been"V
dismissed, the appeliantsp.c–anriot–».._be permitted to re-
agitate the same isslueg'ove1f.;7agairi:_in'this appeal. No
dou'o't, the 'certified copy of the order
sheet of"tl_}.e indicate that the appellants had
fil.e.d 'appiicati'o.nVt_i_nder Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking
» 1ret_nissiori«,o'f. portion of fine amount. Reading of Section
E doll-'V.i_1-ot,c:=.indicate that uniess the application filed
un'cier',Secti0n 446(3) is disposed of, the court has no
power to proceed to recover the fine amount. What is
'contemplated under Section 446(3) is, only remission of
portion of the fine arnotint. 'l'h.erefore. even after the
recovery of the entire fine amount, if the appiication
/E
7. in this View of the rnat.ter._ I find n__<';""gre3_~u._::1a:_.vpa_
admit, this appeal. Accordilagly. the
reserving liberty to the appelléznt :_1:oz
Sessions Judge to disp0se 0'f..}:he apgfilirgat;(§f1Agi';.1..s;V(;1V t;ancie:'. '
Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.