High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shankar N vs Sri Sriram on 15 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shankar N vs Sri Sriram on 15 February, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
"COOE
SEINTENCE,  PASSED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 15?" Say Of February 2010   
BEFORE 'I

THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD Rafi-IM,:','I--'.1',:~.. "' I

MISC. CRL. NO. 586/'2-€110  I
IN I I I

CRIMINAL REVISION '}éE*EITION- NO. 1 90;{2'O.IIa..   

BETWEEN:

AND: 

SRI SHANKAR N T .   ;   
NO.68, ST" CROSS, CI-L,LIw'O=;IT_.~«._  I

CHOLANAYEANAH.RLEI.,;HEEE;A_L '
BANGAI;~OR§E,'--    _ V

, ,   .. .    ..PETITIONER
 [By VST:"i\/.A'I:\I;I--E.._F{edOly arId.,.;i\SSOciateS]

RI SRIR}RI2ij'  C".~R..V"'SHIvARAM

AGED AEO.LIT'..52 Y"EARS*'
PROE. CAU\i/ER":* E§\IT}TRPRISES

. _,NO.184_,_ 3.S.TJ~FLOOF{, 7TH CROSS

 BANGALORE... ..... 

EIAPLJJI E><v,AODL.C.M.M.,
, BANGALORE CITY IN C.C.NO.26311/2006 DATED 17-06-2008

 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL, PENDING OISROSAL OF THE
 ASQVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF

'  'J:.._ISI"ICE AND EQUZTY.

BY THE

THIS MISCCRL. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



A    _?:ACCordfngly,

mv*

L)

O R D E R

Heard regarding sentence.

2. Pending consideration of the petition on._:m,e’.=its,

the order regarding sentence passed in CC
on the fiie or the xv Additionai Chief”-._Metrop0¥itan_

Magistrate, Bangalore City, dated-17.6_,2Qt§8,I.’4vxlhicn
confirmed in CRL.A.No.538/200,8 gonfthe ‘-.f:i’i’e'”d’f–.._’th_e

Additionaf Sessions Judge, Ea_st Track'”Court~§{_;VV.Séazngaiorez-_,:”‘a.
dated 8.12.2009, be and the,_s’ame is*~ t_1Vere.iC=y “suspended

subject to the foiiowinggcondtté-ons;_

r) The petitior:e;’- sr;.a//;.gaepo.’s;4{25% of the amount
covered un;jVe’r tfhe’t/-ue’~:’._i;g*ithin four weeks

frorrttiodagr. If .t.’7e’4.,aCtfju.sed«’Vfhas deposited any

atrri%ohu’r1tiivf,ip C’ or the Appellate

C’0_urt, to deduct the same to
mak<'?'_'l't'l .2v.'5"V"7/'fr. * _,

ii) 5 7-ihe petitloner shall: execute a bond for a sum

‘:”:’o.f—R535,050/’awwlth one surety for the /ikesum

satisfaction of the trial Court

rtafjrig to appear before the Trial Court or

A thV;Ts’CVd’ur’t as may be directed, in case of failure

this petition.

the Ml’SC.Cr!.586/2010 ls

‘ -iisposed’ of.

sal-

JUDGE