R Sampath Kumar S/O Late A Ramaiah vs K Ashoka S/O Krishnappa on 22 November, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BE,E MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASW;§\:¥V\4\"(4A:"V*.»7Ij'I_ 

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONSNO'.536/20ROé'.';VIV "

   

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONA:.7Nmc;;;;'53

BETWEEN:

R. Sampath Kumar

S/o iate A. Ramaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Kariyammana Agrahara,

Beiiandur Post,     A
Bangaiore-560 037,,  1

.._"'~.°'_j.I,_.2Petitioner in both
= ' the cases

(By Sri. A.N. Ra'CiIEIuaE'Rr'ISxhne;.:Ad:VpCate)

Af_\!D: 
KI'-Asliiokax,

S/o"i}3Aa.;E  f 
Aged a.bOu_t« 5'i«y_~e_ar"S,"'

  'fiaghavendra K., Advocate
IA-S.<;OciEIi:es, Advocates)

Ef«.N.o.224,R10"' 'A5 Main,
 Kalyan Nagar; AI iifock,
...I'_jE§.3..ngaiore. " "

 Respondent

in both the cases

for M/s. C.V. Nagesh

6/

Criminal Revision Petition No.536/2006 is filed under
Section 397(1) read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure
praying to set aside the Judgment 27.2.2006 passed by the”XIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Banga’i’o.re.._’~i.n
Crl.A.No.15023/2002 and to acquit the petitioner. ”

Criminal Revision Petition No.53?/2006 _-is.-.filed”~..yungder 2
Section 397(1) read with 401 of Code’ “of”Criminal_li1’roced.ure*;
praying to set aside the Judgment of con\.=ictifion2,and”*-sentenceA
passed by the X Additional Chief M’etro–politan’._Mag«istra~t.e’,”._
Bangalore in C.C.i\io.22877/97 dated 8.2.2002 a.n’d§_£iuVdgment

dated 27.2.2006 passed by the XII$_Additional ‘3es:3io’ns”Judge,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.”1.501V6/2002. and to acquit
the petitioner. =

These Criminal Revision ‘are.LV”‘coming on for
hearing this day the Court made.t’he ‘following;

Revision «_petiVt’iori~e:r’r his counsel are present.
Respondent and his counsel air’-;–;»..present. Permission sought for

is gra nted ‘V

»2.’~Petit.o_ri«.un:der Section-320 of Code of Criminal Procedure

is filed; the petition is admitted before the Court.

vV’7T_Theypetition. section–320 of Code of Criminal Procedure

.1 -.readVs.,a’s’7undeVr:

“Under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminval’s’::”‘»s
Procedure, the respondent/complainant

state as follows:

1. That the complainant/respondent L.

Complaint under Section 200 p:L..:C.A.:ag:a>’§.flfi5.t
Petitioner / Accused in’C3:No.’228?7/199i?’eon”

.the file of Learned Add’:tE’onaili”: chler
Metropolitan Magistrate, _l3’a’ngal4oVre’-.City,é ‘a’l’l’e’c_’lEvng
commission of anal’ ‘i0.ffe’ll.ceV::vp0nisha’ble under
Section 420 EPC. Ttle»learned_’l9l’a’gvi;st’r’ate by his
Judgmentf 8_.2′:2Q’0g:_’ –..””‘convicted the
petitiorier under Section
hsentencedl him-toӤunderg0 S.I. for 2

yea.rs.._ *

2. The PV”eti_tione’r._/’acctllsed preferred an appeal in
_(.§rE’rl’llnal ‘Appeal 15016/2002 challenging the
V”iiitldicjment of ilconviction and sentence. The

V Res’p,onde.nt/’complainant filed an appeal in Cri.

H “A’ppea~i.”yj1SD23/2002 praying for enhancement of

‘”:=envte’n’ce. The Learned XIII Additional Sessions

_Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore by his common

judgement dated 27.02.2006 dismissed

Cr|.Appeal 15016/2002 filed by the accused and
allowed Cri.Appeal 15023/2002 filed by the

I

if

complainant/respondent and enhanced theTr’».

sentence of imprisonment to 5 years and

a fine of Rs.1 Lakh in default to undergo A

one year. The petitioner/accuséci”*—-~.:filed~:
Crl.Revision Pet No.536/20063′ chayllenging.’
judgment of conviction and seéritelfice passedrvin if
c.c. No.22877/1997 byi.:yf’><,% Ad.diti_onaAlV

Bangaiore and confirmed in___Cr.i._A-…i§io.1.5015./2062
by learned XIII Addgiytional'_:Sess'io.ifa»judge atlviayo
Hall and the if petitiolnrer/.a:ccAL;sed filed
Crl.Rev.Pet.yl\[o.v537,g':'2CO(S::.: .::"cfhallerig;iVVhg the
§Iudgme_n.t§'–..4' __tVhie."' Vwiselntence in
Crl.A.No.3.SljLi:3/i0G2'.':f Q '

3. The”CviyilA…d.i_spii§e zjefere city Civil Court in
reslpect: ofmatter has also been
sett|ed~.__’_

4. “l”;i’iey_hayeflymlprovmised all the differences. The
fcorriyp.laivny.ant/re’sp’o’ndent has compromised the

V’ ” offenceiwé Q the petitioner.

llThAVer_efore;}’_”_thel;’complainant/respondent humbly prays

that««..this”HoAn”ble Court may be pleased to permit him

___”-.to conitpound the offence with the petitioner/accused
A’ Cfi.Ae’.l’t–£”ie case in C.C. No.22877/1997 on the file of the
lgealrned X Addl. CMM Bangalore and consequential

-~Ci’|.Appeals i.e. Cri.A.No.1SO16/2002,
Cr|.A.No.1S023/2002 and cri.r§ev.pets i.e. Cri.

if

Rev.Pet. No.536/2006 and Cri.Rev.Petig’:””»i
No.53?/2006, in the interest ofjustice.”

3. These Criminal Revision Petition are aiioweti.__in.te,r’ri*is

the petition filed tinder Section~32O(2)AA”of.Coédeyoti’._(frirn’§inai-;
Procedure. Consequently, the Judg.rtien.t_V_A’of
sentence passed by the X Chief.’j*,MVetrobojiitan’V’
Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C…_i\Jo.2i2’8f’.i?[4’§?”e.dated’8′;2;’;iO02 and
Judgment dated 27.2.2O06’a’Vp.a’ssed{“V::’bttJVthev”‘ X111 Additional
Sessions Judge, M§ayot;VgIfi.ail Criminai Appeai

Nos.15016/20025″8ti_”i–1§’Oi2_3)2:Q*Q::’~–ta'”iFe””i.:ghe–reby set aside. The

petitioner/aet:iis~ed .is””aft:guitted:_'”in’C.C. NO.22877/1997 on the
file of the X Addit4ionVaiVV”Chie_f”Niietropoiitan Magistrate, Bangaiore.
RevigsionVgietivtioner/acciisedé.is set at iiberty. Bail bonds stand

can.(;e’ll;e’d _
T Sdil
Judgg