. A BANGALORE.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009-.,T
BEFORE 'V
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SIII3I~IASII---E::A.I3AI:: " '
CRIMINAL PETITION
BETWEEN: I I A' I 'O
1 SR1 G K SHANTHARAJ I _
S/O SR1 KAPANIGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, .
NO.35,GAYA'mRINAGAR, -
HBCS LAYOUT,NEA.R'~;:,flANKARM{,JTT, ' « _
BASAVESWARANAGAR; " --
BANGALORE -- 560079." I
" I PETITIONER
{Ey{vS1~I:;iAIIA'IAI'_cROSS, '-
SKAVERY LAYOUT.
" "€.7I.,IAY1\l\IAGAR,' ~ ---------- ~ "
RESPONDENT
"'-cRLfI=% FILED U/S39? CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
;. PETITITQNER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
"..pI,EASEO TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRLAPPEAL
$0,956:/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST
COURTWVI, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
Order dated 27.12.2008 passed by the Princippa-{City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal
No.956/ 2008 is called in question.
2. Petitioner is convicted in 20,08.
offence punishable under Section of tiaeeblegotiable
Instruments Act. As against th’is_Tjudgmen.t,’fail appeal has
been filed. In the said aTppeal,_«”t.\l\toVl interlocutoryvapplications
are filed. One for condon’ation”lboi” another for
interim order.
considering that there
is delay in deferred consideration of
interlocutory interim order on the ground
that, notice issued on the interlocutory application
for Vi’con’d’ona’ti,on of delay. Said order is passed on
it 4:. there is delay, appeal could not have been
2..fente1*t.ainled without condoning the delay. It is in these
ciijcurnstances, the learned Sessions Judge has deferred
“consideration of application for interim order. Further, the
order is passed in Qecember 2008 and the matter is before
this Court for almost 8 months. By this time, the learned
$4
_3
Sessions Judge might have passed some orders. Not a case
for interference.
Petition dismissed. — f Li A’ ».
=:«Ap/”