-1.
IN THE man {EQURT OF KARNATAIQ AT BANGALORE
ZJATED '"f'HiS THE 3% {JAY 0:? JUNE 2903
BEFORE %
THE HON'BLf:§ MR.JUS°'I'ICE suBHAs};;'B.A1:é'._jj .. A'
BETW EEN:
Lakkapya
S/0 Huilappa Bagrki
Ages; 60 years
Dec: Ratd.Gc-Vt. Savant
R/0 Iélanchinegalur . ' ._ _4 V
'Tq. Hangal, Disi.Havcr;€'.~_ _ if 1 PETITIONER
(By S1§.Rajcndra._S.A111;2£E{%)ti,
The State
Rep. ii3§,*- tire Fmsfictztei'. .. RESPONDENT
(By s;:;¢Hg.,Wpe;;%wA %
V . _’i’11is}4’i3z’jini11é:1 Rvefiiéion Feiition is filed under Section 397
read. W1th Scctitz-1:1 4O1V(l3r.P.C. praying to 321: aside #31:: judgment
of-_(§k)11_vi<:iiQ11 anb1"'"£31'(ie.r of saentcnee }Z}£iSS8d by the JM¥'C3.,
V flange} in.C:'.«.C}.N0.69/ 1984 c1'£.}4.1.'.2(}04 ancl cxynfinned by tha
K in C1"LA.N0.Q?/2004 dt.2.6.'.2{)(}6.
'}'h..i'sV'L:'i"~_?éf\ri$io11 i3eti't:ion coming on far Admissicm this day",
t1:1é:'..Co:1rt -made the foiiowirlg:
9__B_.D_1Z.E
This Revision Petition 13 against the jildgment. dated
.. _..§,6.2006 in (jiriminal Appeal No.2?’/2004, confilmhxg the
Qt?
-2″
cenvictien jlldgment. and order of sentence dated 14.1.2004 in
C.C.No.69/1984.
2. The accused was pmsecuted far an offence gaugishahie
under Secttionfi 408 and 4′?7(A) of IPC.
3. It is alleged that, during 198(}-81,
misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,,500: j
cloths from Aiagunciagi ‘l’ext’:ilc:.. Hublli,
Madheusudhan Cloth Stores, ”
Compally, Hum J v% M L
4. The presecutiovxia L{)f_PWs~1 to 15 and
also marked Exs._P}._3;o P2£§.” * en appreciation of
the eviégfi-:nce Relying on the oral as Wei}
as d€3C1lIIIi’.(§f£?.£’€i1’_’;{ Apgrellate Ciourt confirmed the
Saici.,.j}’1dgment.. ” aetcused is convicted. in similar ofience
Revision Petition No.3.814/12006 is tam,
I _’ai£f;0′ identiea1 amd the evidence is also simiim’. This
Cflfifi has veefivictt.eé the accused in the: said p.roceedi11gs;.
VVL’.}£oWeve1*;V—-£he gentcnce is reduced to fine of R$.3,0(}0 ,1′ – instead 0f
_ «’lfil§e~..:§entenc:e ef i1np1’isoz1ment on the gxmzxzxzi that the alleged
_.1_n§sappmp1iated amouxat has been deposited by theaeeusexd.
-3-
5. L.e::em:1ed Counsel for Him pctitioncr submitted that,
sixniiar benefit be extcncieci to the petifioncr in this c.2132″ 33.30.
6. Taking said circumstances into consié1c1*é.;tis.§1i,:..V evcn
though there is no ground to ixmzrferc ‘i’$11.6.:}::0nv;itE=£3Lc>;f{». _
judgment, in View of the payment ‘cf of
the opinion, that the benefit exfézcfled toV.v-‘7t13:c «acc’41.1.étdV in
Cr1.R.f°.Nc. 1814/ 2006 can be”‘::;s§fe:1dcd Vi11v_fi1ic-I cage 5130. The
accused is scntanced tat} ‘fine i11s’ic5%§1dAVVcf SI. for the
ofience punishable: u.rzdcfVScciitf21é.s’V’2iif;z1bb€$é77(A) of IPC.
Accor§;vii{:1g1f;fi;’V’ §_”L’:1c: ‘i’§ci\.%ri§.V’;i<)1;1. ¥?:=:¥:}i'{:{<5rit'"is paxfly allowed. The
COflViC¥ZiOI1:_i~3,1(i:_.ig']fiV€-131;'. 'viscctencre dated 14.1.2004 in
c.c.NVta,69;' 1984 ' '
S4/Q.
Igd 9
mcWW cA%c %