IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
_ DATED THIS THE 30?" DAY OF JULY 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B._A{§i' ' ;;-{i .
CRIMINAL REVISION mrrxrsonmno. 634/':ioio~i:: ''
BETWEEN: A it h A
Manjunath
S/o Chikkarangaiéxh
Aged about 32 years
Proprietor of M/ s MNR Ceramics
No.1030, 5"? Main Road A V' --
3"' Cross, 31"" Stage ' p ' ,
Basaveswaranagara,Bangalore.=_ V ._ " jv .. PETITEONER
{By Sri.Harish A Aci'\_r."}"H =
Hemanthviiumari A
S/o Late MastI2ipGowdaa' V. "
Aged about 3E3..yea.rs ' _
Proprietor of M/'3V_Mirae1e"TiVIes Ink.
__ VNo.9/ 4m Mam Road V
6"? Cross, industrial T own
":R3J3§iI13§3Ta. » "
B.angaforev."-._VA ~ .. RESPONDENT
' " (By.E5r_i';B.G,«R'ai§'ast1ekar & Sri.V.Raghunath, Advs.)
_ ' .. _This'v--{311m1na1 Revision Petltion is filed under Section 397
* _ read with 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the impugned order
" and ' co.nviction passed by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan
"Magistrate at Bangalore In C.C.No.12028/2008 to 12032/2008
»1i.S_..order dated 17/04/2009 and the order passed by the city
ast Track ~V in CrI.Appea1 No.41?»/2009 to 417/2009 and Cr}.
Appeai 19 /2010 dated 10/3/20 10 and pass any other
orders / reliefs deems fit.
This Revision Petition coming on for admission this"-day,
the Court made the following: 7
O R D E R
Petitioner has sought for setting “aside .4 “=
1062 March 2010 in Criminal Appeal…’ixiosxt.i3/2oO$:mtcVE
417/2009 and 19/2010, confirming..theV”c.ori:znon.*j’ud§;nen_i§.
c.c.Nos.12o28 to 12032/2008 daté’e._V”717′.V4.2Voo-ah’:on file of
XViAddl.C.M.M., Banga1or’e;=:i. it it
2. However, learned thevhpejtitioner confined
his argument on1y_c”to1 sentences in all
the cases ‘:’He ‘judgment of the Apex
Court reposrtedv matter of STATE OF
PUNJAB –u§-« the Apex Court, in case of
transactions relélafingito’ faicniljz: of respondent, issuing different
to samei.compiain’ant and separate complaints filed and
separatel’co’i1yiction’:.orders passed, considering the nature of
l V’».offence,’_and v.Th’e:’1-circumstances, held that the direction for the
.. sentences *~to*run concurrently is justified. In this case, several
“were issued by the petitioner to the complainant out of
the same transaction. Even the trial court and the appellate
V court have passed the common judgment.
, I
-$1′:
In the circumstances. based on the judgment of the Apex
Court, the sentence as ordered in C.C.Nos. 12028 to
12032/2008 confirmed in Criminal Appeai Nos.413/20o9.__’3¢¢V’:—“ej’=]-.
417/2009 and 19/2010 dated 10m March 2010 shai:_’::n;;;.:”e’%”%
concurrently.