High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S.Venkateshwar Trading Co. vs The Kanoria Industries Ltd. on 13 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S.Venkateshwar Trading Co. vs The Kanoria Industries Ltd. on 13 November, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 13"' DAY OF NOVEMBER,  V.

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. \{-E'T§i'ut'5DaP£iALA.;T:3bii4.r_DAV-T. 

QRIMINAL PETITIQNO _ 1%  ?;3o9_ "

BETWEEN:

M/s Venkateshwar Trading Co..,*'''' --  
By its Droilierietor V ._   "
Venkateshwar Dasannavar  ' .

Aged about 30 years  _  '

R/o Main Road   V    
Post kaiadagi   V    _'   
District '     '
Presentiy at (3add;a_nkei'i Cross " 
Bagalkot TTT      

 PETITIONER
(By Sri:iviaiilikarjDVn:V:'B~.i%ii»rena.atij', Adv)

AND:

-" < ._ Th e._"K§a noria DEVI nd  «Ltd . ,

'Cezfn'ént '*Dfivisio_n, Bagaikot

 By. its.auth'a_r'ivzed«.rep---Legal Officer

M  R.~-Nfi-daseshi ,
Age: "Major-Q'; 

   _ R/0'Eiaga_vi'!<ot«""'  RESPONDENT

O."4"----.V:('?;yVoSriTV.i§.Datar, Adv)

This Cr|.P is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
  ~'pr'aying to caii for the records and modify the order dated
 .2.3i.O9.2009 on application for suspension of sentence in



l\.'

criminal appeal No.73/2009 in so far as direction to deposit
the entire fine amount in concerned and pass such other
order as deemed fit by this Hon'bIe Court.

This Crl.P is coming on for Orders this day, the Court

_ made the following:   0

ORDER

Respondent/complainant, had; filed priixiate1:¢;Qm’pl’aiVnta-_0″

against the petitioner alleging that:;:.’pet’itioner_lhad

with it and towards the cos’t__’of. cement -had
issued cheque bearing __No.28383’5,_’dVa_ted.”2*2..:1A2.V2fOO3 for
Rs.65,700/~ drawn on VV’ija'”ya ‘Baijk, Branch. The

cheque when p:’esented””»on’A was returned

unserved%’wi’thifaVnuefndoireeimeritw”funds insufficient”. The
complainant’.issuedlegal_:”no’t.i-ce dated 10.01.2004 calling

upon the p°etiut’io.ne–.r t_oV*make payment of the cheque

.3mo’u”iiit.;g_’..§3ince thiepayment was not made, complaint was

téhevsworn statement was recorded, cognizance

was,g_ifékeng’an_dri’ case in cc No.1995/2006 was registered.

accused appeared before the Trial Court and denied

,,:ifi1e:lc’i*i.arge. Complainant deposed before the Trial Court.

appreciation of the evidence on record, learned

l/

Magistrate has passed the judgment of conviction and

sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.7S,0.-‘£}D_]’=~_yl_li~nv

default to pay the fine amount to

imprisonment for a period of 30 _day__s.

accused filed appeal before the

Cr|.A.No.73/2009. Along ‘i¥\iit’hzV thew’Vap.peé,:lyAV..i’_l2«e..mfi3led
application for suspension 0fp_.iSllxe:Ante*n_»ce. Appellate
Court has suspended up the condition
that the accused;’–a’ppella’rit.-.s:ha’ll.yA;:»depQgif’pine entire fine
amount of.’.fé*saiVd’WVorder has been

duestion__ed._in – ‘

2. they anpreee.-deed 29.10.2009, impugned order

the Aplpellate Court was stayed till next date of

“to the condition that petitioner/accused

shaI»|””depo.sit’I_either in the Trial Court or in the Appellate

“Court a lls_urn of Rs.25,000/- by 03.11.2009. The said

A C_’arnolu’*nt has not been deposited till date. E

3. Sri.V.R.Datar, learned Advocate in the panel of

advocates of the respondent who is present in the Court is

directed to take notice for the respondent it

the matter.

4. I have heard the teamed Coun?se’l’–_o.:n..’both”sidesvr it

and perused the records.

5. Learned Counsei:’r..ivappearirigw: for the
petitioner/accused :’~-.peAtAitioner Acouid not
deposit the amount of in the order
dated 29.10.t2O:Q4§:.1:oinVactor}pit’;ot:_4’dea’th”o’fiéthe father of the

accused, _ V _V » _ _

6. ‘C__”T”hpelir.i5lp:p’eli4ate”””Court has imposed an

urzreagsonablexconditlionhwhiie suspending the sentence. It

“‘coui”dr no”tfl1a%ve._ directeci to deposit the entire fine amount.

in theé”fa.ct–sV”arjidfcircumstances of the case, it would meet

‘ ends-._of v_;_iu’stii.?:e, if the accused/appellant/petitioner herein

to deposit either in the Trial Court or in the

o.«’A.ppel.l.éate Court a sum of Rs.25,000/– pn or before

i
i
‘fr

36.11.2009. If the amount is deposited, the

appellant/accused shall have the benefit of suspensi.o”n_of

sentence ordered by the lower appellate Court. V.

any default in the matter of deposit before it u

is made clear that sentence impo’se’d”by_ “the.;«’l:’:ri’a.i_

shall become executable, in that theintelrim loroier

by the lower Appellate Court shall’V”cease to._op»e:r_ate.r it
Petition stands di5″pQ_seC_i”5f’a{f§:ord-i_ng|y.”H”
Sri.V.R.Datar, learnede in-‘.j’Vis__’.’.~granted two

weeks time to fi re’ «1yéi’ka|a_th ginfthe» ‘rég’*ist_nf.;’

Sd/-5
JUDGE