IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF JULY 2010 BEFORE THE HONTBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.A'13I < ;..[: _ cRmI1~:A;.. REVISION PE'rI'rIo1§r N0.8--2;"2.f):1.(:)'*~::: " BETWEEN: Sn'. M.V.Satyanarayana Rao S / 0 M.Venkatappaiah Aged about 72 years R/0 No.3, Saptagiri Krupa _ DNR Layout I Sheshadripuram 15* Main, ' I Palace Guttahalli V H I - .. Bangalore W 550 02.0'. 5 W _ - .. PETITIONER (By AND: Smt.Shant'1* Martin _ A AA" M/s ACE Scfibet _ V' _ Aged about 42 'years, V R/o 8F11_%."Mair1. 3?" Stage V 'F'i.I1ar1na (fiarden '''' *._Bang£1Iore 5§o«..o45. .. RESPONDENT
(13’y_1VijsIA Siaa’5tryx.:8:”.C0.. Advs.)
‘I’}:11s Criminal Revision Petition 1s filed under Section 397
:'”v4.4″—-feadawith=401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment of the
Appellate Court made in Cr1.A.No. 149/2009 dated 19.11.2009
I .in’gso- far as it relates to modifying the order of sentence with
___””i-egard to fine amount of Rs. 1370.000/– and payment of Rs.
_4″=1..,EI5,O0O/- to the petitioner/complainant and confirmed the
‘judgment made by the V~Addl. Judge Court of Small Causes 82:
” ~ “XXIV —-ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.28408/2008 dated
27.1.2009 in relation to sentence with regard to payment of fine
amount and payment of the same to the complainant by
allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
This Revision Petition coming on for admission
the Court made the following: ‘ ” V
0 R D E R
Petitioner is the complainant. Hefllhlas
petition against the judgment in
dated 19″‘ November 2009 on oi it l
Bangalore.
2. Trial Courteonvietedvihtheliaeeuslécihl ;~’.;lfe~apondent herein
with fine arnou;;:ii%¢i”jaa2,e;o.c»o0l/ Rs.2,50,000/–
was treated as~ was treated as
fine amount? _ wahsuflealied in question by the
accused before’ the court. The lower appellate
court reziueed fine’ ariiount to Rs.1,70,000/-, out of which.
–”was directed to be paid to the complainant. As
the fine amount. petitioner has filed this
revision petitioiiyll
‘A After hearing for some time, both the Counsel submit
‘_l_jt_hatl,”i’iie matter is settled. Counsel for the respondent -~
C -:’_’:acc’used submits that, Rs.i,70,000/– is reasonabie, however,
éxvgg
she agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/–, if one months time is granted,
for which the petitioners Counsel has no objection.
Accordingly, the Revision Fetition stands V.
the following terms:
Respondent — accused shall arneunti?
Rs.2,00,000/– before the trial court. :”tl’te
already deposited Rs.?5,000/– laefore the. V as ‘V V
submitted, the respondent” shall rernaining: amount
of Rs.1.25,ooo/- on or beta-é in default, the
resilondent shall two months.
Petitioner — to wtthdraw the amount
already heis’Aa1so..pet*rnitted to withdraw the
amount tl’;-at the respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE