Srinivasa S/O Chennanna Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09?" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2O0,:é'»C.'
BEFORE H A   
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWADV A E' A

MISC CRL.NO.E~;.;127E_/:'09V     A
CRL.A. No._936 OF--2099

BETWEEN:

1. SRINIVASA, S/O 'CLH_ENif«IANI\£'»'\.TGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS',  ;   
OCC: AGRICULTURE,-I _  A  
R/O BILLARODI  G'C|.RI_PALY,A',*
UJIRE VTLLAGE, BELTHAN'GA'DY~»TA.LUKA,
DAKSHIATA s§A.NN.ADA- .DIS._TR,'£CT..

2. SMT. R;A.VMA'LA_,VS,/,0 _CHE!\l.NVA_NNA GOWDA,
Af3E'D"ABTOUTi"f63 YEARS-, G
O-._CC:_ HO'U'SE.HOLD._W'ORK-,
R/Q BILLA-ROD}_HO_Ui3.E.; GURIPALYA,
UJIRE VILLAG EE,.ABAEVL;*«:iHA:\JGADv TALUKA,
DAKSHINA K_A-.NN=_AD'A DISTRICT.
 "   -   
v.[A:B,¥_SR1 R B DESHPANDE, ADV.)

   1'

g 'THE 'STATE OF KARNATAKA
BYv~._'PO'L'iCE INSPECTOR, ANTY DOWRY CELL,
C~.O;~D. BANGALORE.
 ..    RESPONDENT
" _ "(BY SRI RAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP)

>¢<=k*_

THIS MISCCRL IS FILED U/S 389 CR.P.C BY THE

 A ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS

(44%
C1



HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SUSPEND THE
SENTENCE, ETC -

THIS MISC. CRL IS COMING om FOR Aomissrow ow
THIS ozw, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-- 

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel 3a”p_pelAl’a.nts..’,gnV..t_.tl’ieS

application filed under Section 349′?”Cr.P.Cg3..v–‘V–li3§}:’vlihiighbthies,

suspension of sentence is sougm. Perusedi the grounds

urged therein.

2. Thiswpetitiori’ respondent –

State been convicted
on commission of offence
punishable unVd’erjS:ect’i’o»ni”3..Oe:i-98 IPC. It is further alleged
that theappelvllalntsilhau’e_;.”not made out any case worth

acceptance for”‘s~u_spens;on of sentence imposed.

“learned counsel for appellants contended

thattiie trial Judge has not specifically recorded any

“.finding~~Vas to whether the offence alleged to have been

A is one punishable under Section 306 or S304-B

It is further urged that during trial the appellants were

on bail and there is no complaint from the prosecution of

they having indulged in any acts adverse to the prosecution.

4. No doubt, the conviction of the appe–l–l.ants’Visitor

the offence punishable under Section

IPC. But, as could be seen frorn theiffinfcnngfs’~r:e(:o’rd’eVdg_ ‘

the trial Court there is, no clfaritya as tool-“–lw:h’ethei;’ .i:l”.ey’*.

have been found guilty for ‘t”r1e.”offence..p”un’ish’a§ble under

Section 305 or 304–B s:’ivc._

5. Be that as ill. that the matter
requires a statutory appeal
availabletyo necessarily the matter
has to Considering the pendency of
the caseffoffsirnfilfar the file of this court and the

time_;tha.t is li’l<~e_lyv'to:be taken for final disposal of this

app_e'alg,Ig any satisfied circumstances warrant grant of

li"ntefr_i_rn "reli_ef_.

Accordingly, the MISC. CRL. NO. 5127/zoos is

A ‘*:laEl.o;vye_d. The order regarding sentence passed in S.C. NO.

_.”’62y:f2006 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,

‘5
Q//Qkw

Puttur, D.i<., dated 18/2141-2009, be and the same is

hereby suspended subject to the foliowing conditions:

1) The appeiiants shalt execute a bond be_fo_re.Vpttrettrirai

court for a sum of Rs.25,000/– €.’;t(i’hv.\iT\iViiifi'”f5i”l’€u’.

surety for the iikesum tojhe sai:r’sfafic’_ti,o’nw. of the”.

tri ai cou rt u n derta king to a ppt;;-a«,– ‘beefo_re.: 4t’i'”‘.’..l’5., rt

or triai court as may be diirected in case of’r”=a’ii~ure«..

of this appeal; and it

2) The appeliants shaliflia-i.so–._ciepos–it_iv50% of the
amount of fine’-i.mp.’osedtwithtin.%a period of three

weeks from now.

3. Sincesthe éi.pp;eiia;nt”s :are=i.n..ifcustody, they shaii
be reieased isjnnied”i’ateI’§.’jVvt.o;n=i:.e>{e€cution of the Bond as

ordered,”