IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THES THE l4thDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 BEFORE THE HONBLI3 MRJUSTICE SUBHASH~B..,A'DIi =O--i[j ._ CRIMINAL ?ETITION I5Iio.42Soi_s_z?_2_'6_¢J§'i " 'O, E if BETWEEN : Snit.La1ithamma W/o V. Raghunath, Aged about 50 years, C/o R. Manjuia, Residing at No.B--l, A.R. Arcade, _ H.M.T. Main Road, Mathikere, ii i . Bangalore W 560 ' PETITION ER (By Sri. _ AND: K.Rameghi' " N'/'o.G0p*aI. ~ _____ .. « Aged Etbout 4oVyeai?s«-,.., Ode: '1"caCEier;-._ ~ A' ' Residenitotf Maiii_v»Ro~t§d;i , '-..i'».Sira Town, V _ Tumkur District. " A RESPONDENT
.. A’ ‘7£i’hi_$ Ciimifaal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
se§’asi’de the order dt.23.8.2008 passed in C.C.No.496/06 passed by the
= _c..i(JR,DN.) & JMFC, at Sira.
N This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the
1 R * ” foilowingz
O R X) E R
Petitioner has called in question the order dated 23.8.2008 wherein
the learned Magistrate has forfeited the amount of Rs.5,000l’–~{
towards the fine amount. if if f if if
2. Case of the petitioner is that, agajnsti the orderin
C.C.No.-496/2006, petitioner had preferred
and in the said appeal, he had filed an’-veappl.icat.io1i– 389 of if
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentenee. his order
dated 29.7.2008 was pleased toallowithe;’iapp1.ioatior1subject to deposit of
10% of the fine anj’.Oi2i.1:1itVp;L_”t’t1d for Rs.3,0(),000/–.
in terms of theft sam”e,__pe4titiQhe1~«..h.ad’=,;:orr:p1ied with the same by
depositing :lS’_.s.3_S,0fl(i¢’;Vhei1igp the compensation amount and also
had deposited’ Rsj_.5t,()v0()’/~ amount. Despite having deposited
the amogint, ulearned ~l_\/lagistrate without taking into consideration the
.”~interir:2., order passedv by the appellate court had forfeited the fine amount
de;$dsited«by’at’ev. petitioner by his order dated 23.8.2008.
l?e’titionier has produced the copy of the order passed by the
V’ —Snessvions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.1.02/2008. The said order
‘-s.’tate’s:§ that, the judgment of conviction is stayed subject to petitioner
V V if “depositing 10% of the compensation amount and also executing personal
bond for Rs.3,00,000/–. If the petitioner had complied with the interim
order passed by the appellate court, there was nothing for the Magistrate
to forfeit the fine amount. Considering the same, I find that the”pet,ition
requires to. be allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is a1.1owed;””‘i”iieiortier
passed in C.C.No.496/2006 by the J.M.F.c.,’i$§i~§«;g’sex nation _ J, ”
– ‘}, Iudge~’ti’
KNM/~