High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Najib Ulla Sheriff S/O Mustafa … vs M/S Shakthi Engineering Works on 2 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Najib Ulla Sheriff S/O Mustafa … vs M/S Shakthi Engineering Works on 2 December, 2008
Author: Jawad Rahim
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

'£)A'T'ED T:-us THE 02"" DAY OF nscmaen zone;

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. wsnce JAWAD 3.AH::M   
  9 "gm 0:  _ T   6  

BETWEEN:

1 SRI NAJIB ULLA sHER.IFF«_f«
SIG MUSTAFA BASHEERSH-ERIF_vF
MAJOR,   ' 
940.4%, DEVARA3"LlRLSARQfif.>vV  f f
MYSORE     

  '  -  ..;vPE'fi:'TIoNER

(By 5:: =5 
AND: T T  T 

1;  $425 SHfiTKTHI__E§$GINEERING wcmxs
 w:;.53;A 19TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK

A   KoaAMAN_GALA, BANGALORE 34
 "¥?.EP.F_1'ES.EVrJ.~TED av $.RAGHURAM REGDY

 RESPONDENT

gag} $ri”v$ SHEKAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AA {fl§L.RP FILE9 U/5.397 WW 4021 CR.P.C PRAYING

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS DT. 26.12.2905 PASSED

W THE 5.3., F.T.C-VIII, SANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.

.,V_1}3.33/2005 AND THE EUDGMENT DT. 223.2005 PASSED

BY THE XIII ADSL. C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.¥’slO.

30115/2000.

This revision petiticm coming on for recording

settlement, this day, the Court made the foliewir:g:-

V,

QRIZEB

This revision is filed against the~—-oAr§e;}*~..:éated.v” 2

25.12.2005 passed in Cri.AppeaI no.1isglzooieopasseciebyit

the Sessions Judge, Fast Traoit_4’§:on’rt._\rI’;EI,
the judgmetn dated in
C.C.hio.3011S/2000 by X.iI’i:_At:id_i.flChief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore. it

2. The mette.r:V1′–wae_ referredEi”1or”-eettiement to the
Medication sent a report
reporting. matter and sought
permission to iefience.

3. Thexreimrt. is–.aot_:ei5’t’ed. The parties are permitted

..~vv1:o_ co.:’nno§.:.nd.._the Aoffence. The petitioner has deposited

V”its.3..’G5,O@.:j}'{in:.:compliance with the order passed by the

triai”eo”nrt is agreeable to permit the respondent to

‘ oiithdrein. R.s;,1.G0 iaich. But considering the circumstances

‘3

no in’afti1AreHof proceedings, I direct that the entire sum of

R;.fs.i;§0″S.AAG60/~ be paid to the respondent. Another sum of

i its;’5.0G0/- which is to be paid by the petitioner as fine to

the State is waived. The order permitting compounding

di”

the offence results in ecquittai as permissibie under__.sub-

section (8) of Section 321 Cr.P.C:.

The revision petition stands disposed of._f:” ~

ami-