GP)
.3. ........-...-....- nvurl \.uuKI'_ ur nmmnlnnp HIGH couau or KARNATAKA HIGH count: or Imunnunnn l'llI.'il'l Luun
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKAHAT BANGMQRE
DATED THIS THE 267'" DAY OF NOVEMBE1RA,.~«2§.3_i%.":'§e'_i__d:"'..' "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.
CR AL H0.d'&5:dd 1 M
.B.<.=_._tV5;¢1'1!
Smt.Eay{amznQ, ,
Wlo Late Clfikknvélfltaf-firflifappfig p
Aged aboutfoyearay' T '
R/atmalaaurld. _ A A
Chikkabajlap;-;1raTa1I1k," "
'
(By Sri.B.\f;Pi1f1to, £iébJoc.ate) ' " V
And:
The: of _ 2 A by
$;H.Q., Malgdevajgnna P.S.,
Cit5,..._1,§§an'ict.
___----
Appeal 3 filed under seem: 4+9
. C..;'.P.C. Advocate finr the appellant praying that
p .':inn'bleCmn'tmaybe planned to reduce and modify
' of penalty as passed by the order dated
passed by the RI... & Add}. Sessions Judge,
_' _F'IC}'-III, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangabre in
«.fs;c.Nu.1166/2007.
'I'h'nCrimina1Appealoom1'ngonforhearingthio
day, the Court delivered the fi:Illow'ing:- p
(__('r%/"
...Reapondent p
suvuu \uVI\ll\' \Il' INIIIIIIIIQIJQINFI l'II\.7l'I \..\J'|.ll(| \Jl' l'\l-III'!-\II\I\Ii "H971 L-IJIJII
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is by the aurety
% Nae:-..1 and 3 in S.C.No.1166[ 2007 on the
Track Court-III, Banga_lorc City.’
impugned order dated ‘26.0.3..24CK)9 “p#&IAs.ed
cane levying the penalty o1–gs.so,cm;. M
appellant — urety is h
2. 1: iauI1aj;1; ix: % appellant
stood an 3 in the said
case. absent, the
surety However, since the
px-eaenc’e be secured, only a sum
– be levied * as penalty on this
Since the presence of accused No.3
_ entire hand amount of Ra.50,(I)D]- as
T3.J’rmorigi:m1reoordsobzaincdn-ommeu-ial
[Court reveal that this appellant — surety had filed an
application on 27.12.2008 requeatixg the trial Court to
.-.-I-\”””\”””
take lenient View in imposing penalty on her on____1;he
ground that she has been a poor widow with
child doing eoolie work could not afford to
bond amount of Re.50,000]- aev.pez;a_hy’–“‘uVV
reading of the impugned order, it.
tna1′ Court did not consider hf’ “1
4. While “er the
impugned orde1′,.t.hia that
the the trial Court
a aum of Counsel. for the
–__ __t1-sat the said amount has
been
p [53 to the financial oondifion of
her status and other facts, I feel
efjeetiee-weum be met ifthe pcmlty of
‘ imposed on her in reduced to Ru.15,(I)O/-
d already been deposited by her before the trial
Hence’, the present appeal is allowed in part.
penalty of Rs.50,000/F imposed on the appellant –
We