High Court Karnataka High Court

H.B. Prasanna Kumar vs Udayakumar P.K. on 6 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
H.B. Prasanna Kumar vs Udayakumar P.K. on 6 September, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2oIO._
BEFORE AV _ 4' V'  
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUEHASH-';I3::'ADiV.: "  

CRIMINAL PETITION NOA['37:*2}<2010;': = _   '

BETWEEN:

H.B.Prasanr1a Kumar

Aged about 54 years 

Son Of Late H.Bheemachar  _  »

NO.402, 631 Main, Kaggadasapura.  

C.V.Raman Nagar V  g    I " 

Bangalore -- 560 0,9:3..__  V    h  ....PE"I'ITIONER

2..  SE1;i'{1_'}{;§,teTIkataraII1aI1a, Adv.)
AND:  """    1'. . . . ~.
P.K.Uda_'yiaku--marV     
Aged aboutu46=yearS " ..  "

Son of B.P.K1"i$hDa 
Residing at Hasirgxthota House

V Ivarnad_§L1 Village,  A _
 ' ;3uAIIiav- Taluk... D.DiSt1*i(:'t. . . RESPON DENT

 'V  PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

   CR.P'.C'_15RAY!.N'G:--.jIHA'1' THIS IIONELE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO

MODIFY'  CONDITIONAL ORDER DT.19.?".1O PASSED BY THE

 SO. FTG; PUTTUR, D.K., IN CRL.A 93/10, WITHOUT INSISTINO
I  .TIIE DEPOSIT 25% OF THE FINE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT THE TRIAL
 -CDIAJRT EY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

 COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



ORDER

This matter is directed against the order dated

in Crl.A.No.93/2010 pending on the file of

Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. ~

2. Petitioner is convicted it

JMFC, Sullia, by judgment 26A..6.2_0’1.Qll offence

punishable under Section 138ppyo£llli\iegotiAable liristrurinents Act,
wherein he has been i?.s.8,58,000/–. The
said judgment is called inV.–d1i.¢stio11_’:beiafetlzlfifilgllAppellate court
In the said for suspension of
sentence, is that, he need not

deposit the a_m.ount.V…e_ ” V

3. Theda.-ppellate considering the nature of offence

» and ci_i’eum_stancesllfound«that, the petitioner has been convicted

-. Sentence could be suspended subject

to Rs.25% of the cheque amount within 15

V days personal bond. As against this order, this

l ‘ petitoii «-has been filed.

4. Interim Order is discretionary order of the Appellate

»_lC.’fourt and the Appellate Court has not committed any error in

ordering 25% of the cheque amount to be deposited. Considering

the same, not a case for interference.

$Ap/_

Petition dismissed.