High Court Karnataka High Court

Antony Vargheses Koluthara vs Hmt (International)Ltd., on 14 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Antony Vargheses Koluthara vs Hmt (International)Ltd., on 14 September, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
AND:

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE I4" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.A.B'i ,1:   

CRIMINAL i'ETITION No.423v1,r2o09g'c'{WIe E'   .
CRIMINAL PETITION Nzo.4g;212oe2 '     I
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4231/g0o9   I  »

BETWEEN:

Antony Varghese Koluthara

Managing Director,

M/s Koluthara Exports Ltd, _g   
VII/45, Keltron Road,     '
Aroor 688 534, w 

Alleppey Di§Itrict,"E. Bf:-3' O'

Kerala. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.T. KRIS-}1_ONI,fiI,(3-.S§'V:§ AO:S'S.OC.lATES, Advs.)

HMT an[€1'I3'§EIti0Ii~a1)"~Lii'I}i[Cd,

A 'p1I_b'V1i_c_ 1OiI'f' BC'O"n1pé1_;=.y incorporated
Under. theVCorI1p_&n_ies; Act, 1956

O°'~='v.¥-iavingA its Rcgist_eIjcd Office at No.59,
 Bellary Road;'* Bangalore W 560 032.

.1  VRepre'sen-ted  its
  Dcp*4t3'.GeiIcra1 Manager,
 Sri'. Strdhindra Gargesa .. RESPONDENT

A ‘ a A CRIMINAL PETITION No.4232/2009

BETWEEN:

I

ix)
x

Sri. A.C. Mathew,

S/0 Chacko,

Aged 80 years,

E:-t–Cornpany Secretary,

Koluthara Exports Ltd.,

V11/45, Keltron Road,

Aroor —- 688 534,

Alleppey District, , H ‘
Kerala. j; ‘; PHr_ITs1oNE.R, j

(By Sri.G.S.Visveswara, Sr.Adv. for –
M/s.Carnatic Law Assts., Advs.)

AND:

HMT (International) Limited, .

A public limited company incorporated ‘ –. at
Under the Companies «Act; .l 955 _
Having its Registered Otifice at N059, = V
Bellary Road, Bangal.o’re’¥~”;’3»6O 032 ” ,

Represented its p .,
Deputy Gen~eral._Man’a~ger.,_pW – .
Sri. Sudhindra Gargesa .. RESPONDENT

Criminal Petition,l’1Eo,Zl-2i3’l:~fi0’O9 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying, quash the” order dai.ed 18.7.2009 in Crl.A.575/2009 passed by
the.City. liCi_vil and Sessi’onsV Judge, Bangalore, produced herewith as
‘Annexure–D, in -spovfar as it relates to the petitioner allow this Criminal

Pet.ition_ With”‘costsi’t.h_rough out.

‘Petition No.;l232/2009 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to rziodify the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast

1

j;j~Tr’ack Cou”tt,p_l_\}”o.8, Bangalore City in Crl..A.574/2009 requiring to deposit
_ ‘ 2u3%”oiE..the fine amount in the alternative to impose any other reasonable
terms. or eonditions.

This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the

” ~ folliowin g:

ORBER
Two separate appeals have been filed against the single judgment
of conviction in C.C.No.334l0/i999 dated l9’h June 2009 on the file of

XXI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.

2. Learned Magistrate by the said judgment convicted. ~

mmafimmmwmontxwamwqnwmmgowageghawor”

six months’ S.I.

3. Accused No.2, who is “ipeti_ti0ner’~ in .Cri1nintal«-v…Petition -. L’

No.423l/2009 is the Managing Director__and_ accused is the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.4232/2009his.a1 fiecretary and both of

them have area two;separateiiaplpeals.'””Whi1e considering the interim

prayer in both the appeal};tthe,_ap,p’ellate court though granted interim

order, buttsubjectaio each ‘app*e_llants depositing 25% of the fine amount.

is at ti°ii,s°sta~ge, these petitioniers have been filed for modification of the

int’er_irntorderi.i”«._t A .

*4-. Sri.G.S;’-fissweswara, learned Senior Counsel a earin for the

pe’ti.tioners snbtziitted that, the cheque was given towards guarantee and
the iappeals have been filed and they are pending. Deposit of 25% of fine

–airnourit by each of the petitioners will be very harsh since both the

.appeals are directed against the same judgment. It is stated that the

-4-

appeals are statutory appeals, the statutory right cannot be taken away by

imposing any such condition.

5. Learned Sessions Judge has found that, 25% would the

reasonable deposit, which could be ordered against the of
conviction. However, in these cases, two separate appe._a]sVjare’
against the same judgment. If the object is;to”en’sure’–deposiVt” 25% of’:

the fine amount, then it shouid have been orderedliat 25% togelh in ~.

opinion, 25% together in both the appeialsi would sufflcae of
ensuring bouafides of the appelljants.
in the light of the same, both’ the ihpetietionslloaistiy allowed. The

petitioners each would deposit’ arn_ou’nt in each of the

appeal within four weekslhfrom tod.ay=’andl’aredirected to comply with

other conditions subject to whiichvlinteitinygrdér grated by the Sessions

Judge wouidicoiitinue.-.

KNMV/all it

Sd/-=
Iudge