{"id":182487,"date":"2011-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-18T01:36:39","modified_gmt":"2017-10-17T20:06:39","slug":"b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . B Chauhan<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                                       Reportable\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA\n\n\n           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n        CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1038-1039 OF 2004\n\n\n\n\nB.N. Shivanna                                                             ...Appellant  \n\n\n\n\n                                           Versus\n\n\n\n\nAdvanta India Limited & Anr.                                      ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                               J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      These   two   appeals   have   been   filed   against   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bangalore   in <\/p>\n
CCC(Crl.)   Nos.   7   and   12   of   2002   dated   18.8.2004   by   which   the <\/p>\n
appellant   has   been   convicted   for   committing   criminal   contempt   of <\/p>\n
court and has been awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment for a <\/p>\n
period  of six months  along with a fine  of Rs.2,000\/-,   in default,  to <\/p>\n
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the <\/p>\n
appellant was enrolled as an advocate on 14.8.1998 and since then he <\/p>\n
has been practicing in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Prior <\/p>\n
to joining the Bar, he had been working for the respondent company <\/p>\n
as     Marketing   Executive.     Being   well   known   to   the   officials   of   the <\/p>\n
company, he was engaged as Retainer for the Company and thus, the <\/p>\n
appellant used to report to the company’s officials  about the progress <\/p>\n
of   its   cases   pending   in   various   courts   in   Karnataka.   However,   on <\/p>\n
receiving   some   orders   purported   to   have   been   passed   by   the   High <\/p>\n
Court of Karnataka,   the officials of the company became suspicious <\/p>\n
and verified from the original record, and then submitted a complaint <\/p>\n
to   the   High   Court   that   the   appellant   had   furnished     to   the   company <\/p>\n
copies of fabricated and forged orders purported to have been passed <\/p>\n
by   the   Karnataka   High   Court.   On   the   basis   of   the   same,   criminal <\/p>\n
contempt   proceedings   were   initiated   suo   motu   by   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
against the appellant by registering a case CCC(Crl.) No. 12 of 2002, <\/p>\n
whereas CCC(Crl.) No. 7 of 2002 was initiated at the instance of the <\/p>\n
respondent   company.       The   High   Court   took   cognizance   under   the <\/p>\n
provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to <\/p>\n
as   `Act   1971′)   against   the   appellant.   The   court   proceeded   with   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
allegations   that   the   appellant   had   taken   advantage   of   his   position <\/p>\n
telling   the   said   company’s   officials   falsely   that   criminal   cases   have <\/p>\n
been   launched   in   various   courts   in   Karnataka   against   various <\/p>\n
purchasers   and   distributors   of   seeds   under   the   Seeds   Act   for   the <\/p>\n
alleged   producing   and   selling   of   the   spurious\/sub-standard   seeds   by <\/p>\n
the agriculturists.   The appellant made the officials of the respondent <\/p>\n
company believe that a large number of criminal cases had been filed <\/p>\n
against the company and its officials in various courts in Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
3.      In this regard, it was alleged that the appellant sent a policeman <\/p>\n
possessing   summons\/warrants,   almost   on   regular   basis,   to   the   Head <\/p>\n
Office   of  the   company   and  thereby   made  the   higher   officials   of   the <\/p>\n
company   believe   that   a   number   of   criminal   cases   had   been   filed <\/p>\n
against the company and its officials and that there was an urgent need <\/p>\n
to   take   immediate   action   in   that   regard.   Subsequently,   the   appellant <\/p>\n
told  the company officials that he would arrange for avoidance of the <\/p>\n
warrants   being   executed   against   them,   though   there   was   imminent <\/p>\n
danger   of   officials   being   arrested,   which   he   had   so   far   successfully <\/p>\n
avoided.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
4.      The   appellant   advised   the     company   officials   to   file   criminal <\/p>\n
petitions   in   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   for   quashing   of   the   said <\/p>\n
criminal   proceedings   alleged   to   be   pending   in   the   courts   at   Hubli, <\/p>\n
Mysore, Chitradurga, Bellary, Sandur, Raichur etc., and the appellant <\/p>\n
asked  the company   in writing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000\/- towards <\/p>\n
the   court   fee   in   each   case   for   filing   of  criminal   petitions   before   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   in   addition   to   other   miscellaneous   expenses   like   his <\/p>\n
professional     fee,   typing   etc.     The   company   having   full   faith   in   the <\/p>\n
appellant remitted the said amount of court fee of Rs.10,000\/- in each <\/p>\n
case for purchasing the court fees from the vendor, namely, Smt. S.\n<\/p>\n
Gauri,   who was none  other  than  the mother-in-law   of  the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The company sent cheques in the names of Smt. S. Gauri as well as <\/p>\n
the appellant towards the court fees and his professional charges and <\/p>\n
other expenses.  As the appellant had told the officials of the company <\/p>\n
that more than 500 criminal cases had been filed by various persons <\/p>\n
against the company and its officials,  a sum of Rs.62 lakhs was paid <\/p>\n
by the company through cheques in the name of the appellant as well <\/p>\n
as Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor.   The appellant also got a <\/p>\n
huge   amount   from   the   company   under   the   pretext   of   payment   of <\/p>\n
professional   charges   to   other   advocates   purported   to   have   been <\/p>\n
                                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
engaged   by   him   to   represent   the   company   in   various   subordinate <\/p>\n
courts of the State.   Thus, in all, according to the company, a sum of <\/p>\n
Rs. 72 lakhs had been paid to the appellant apart from his professional <\/p>\n
charges.  In order to justify his bonafides and to show the result of his <\/p>\n
professional   engagement   and   on   enquiry   by   the   company,   the <\/p>\n
appellant   is   alleged   to   have   produced   a   copy   of   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
3.10.2001, purported to have been passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.\n<\/p>\n
Patri   Basavanagowda   of   Karnataka   High   Court,   showing   that   341 <\/p>\n
criminal petitions filed by the company, had been allowed by the High <\/p>\n
Court   and   criminal   proceedings   launched   against   the   company   in <\/p>\n
those cases stood  quashed.\n<\/p>\n
5.     It was, in fact, later on when the company’s officials   came to <\/p>\n
know that no court fee was payable  in criminal cases filed before the <\/p>\n
High Court, that it made discreet inquiries and learnt that the amount <\/p>\n
had been collected by the appellant in the name of his mother-in-law <\/p>\n
Smt.   S.   Gauri,   the   alleged   stamp   vendor,   fraudulently.   On   further <\/p>\n
inquiry,   said   officials   came   to   know   that   the   alleged   stamp   vendor <\/p>\n
Smt. S. Gauri was only a housewife and not a stamp vendor and the <\/p>\n
bank   account   for   which   the   cheques   were   issued   in   her   name,   was <\/p>\n
                                                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
being  operated  by  the  appellant   himself,   and  no  case   had  ever  been <\/p>\n
filed in any subordinate court against the said company.\n<\/p>\n
6.      Being   aggrieved,   the   company   wrote   a   letter   to   the   Registrar <\/p>\n
General   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   mentioning   all   the   afore-\n<\/p>\n
mentioned facts submitting  that the appellant had played fraud upon <\/p>\n
them by providing the forged and fabricated order purported to have <\/p>\n
been passed by the High Court of Karnataka and as such, abused the <\/p>\n
process of law and interfered with the administration of justice.   On <\/p>\n
coming   to   know   about   these   facts,   the   High   Court   itself   suo   motu <\/p>\n
initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant.  Notices <\/p>\n
were   issued   to     the   appellant   and   on   his   appearance,   he   denied   the <\/p>\n
charges and was tried for the said allegations clubbing both the cases.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution relied upon the evidence of 5 witnesses and marked a <\/p>\n
large   number   of   documents.     The   appellant   did   not   lead   any   oral <\/p>\n
evidence but   marked several documents.   After completing the trial, <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   convicted   the   appellant   and   sentenced   him   as <\/p>\n
mentioned hereinabove.  Hence, these appeals under Section 19 of the <\/p>\n
Act 1971.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
7.     S\/Shri   Tony   Sebastian   and   P.   Vishwanatha   Shetty,   learned <\/p>\n
senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant,   have   submitted   that <\/p>\n
proceedings   have   been   conducted   in   utter   disregard   to   the   statutory <\/p>\n
rules   framed   for   the   purpose,   namely,   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka <\/p>\n
(Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to <\/p>\n
as `Rules 1981′).   It has been submitted  that Rule 7 thereof has not <\/p>\n
been complied with at the time of initiation of the proceedings.  Rule <\/p>\n
7 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “7.  Initiation of proceedings on information –  (i)  <\/p>\n
       Any information other than a petition or reference  <\/p>\n
       shall,   in   the   first   instance,   be   placed   before   the  <\/p>\n
       Chief Justice on the administrative side.  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)     If   the   Chief   Justice   or   such   other   Judge   as  <\/p>\n
       may   be   designated   by   him   for   the   purpose,  <\/p>\n
       considers   it   expedient   or   proper   to   take   action  <\/p>\n
       under   the   Act,   he   shall   direct   that   the   said  <\/p>\n
       information be placed for preliminary hearing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In view of the above, it is submitted that none of the matter had <\/p>\n
been   placed   before   the   Hon’ble   Chief   Justice   on   the   administrative <\/p>\n
side and the matter has been placed directly before the Division Bench <\/p>\n
which heard the matters after having some preliminary inquiry by the <\/p>\n
Registry of the High Court from the Secretary of Hon’ble Mr. Justice <\/p>\n
G.   Patri   Basavanagowda.     Thus,   the   proceedings   stood   vitiated   for <\/p>\n
non-compliance of the statutory requirement.     It is further submitted <\/p>\n
                                                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
that the respondent company has also launched a criminal prosecution <\/p>\n
against the appellant and the police after investigating   the case, has <\/p>\n
filed   the   chargesheet   against   the   appellant,   and   Smt.   S.   Gauri,   his <\/p>\n
mother-in-law.     However,   the   trial   has   not   started   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
pendency   of   these   appeals   before   this   Court.   The   appellant’s <\/p>\n
conviction would adversely affect the case of the appellant in the said <\/p>\n
criminal case.  In fact, some officials of the company have hatched a <\/p>\n
conspiracy   to   amass   wealth   and   that   is   why   they   have   enroped   the <\/p>\n
appellant and his relatives in these cases.  The appeals  deserve to be <\/p>\n
allowed  and the impugned judgment and order  of the High Court is <\/p>\n
liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
8.      On   the   other   hand,   S\/Shri   Naresh   Kaushik   and   Gurudatta <\/p>\n
Ankolekar,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondents,   have <\/p>\n
opposed the appeal contending that the appellant being an advocate, <\/p>\n
had indulged in criminal activity and succeeded in having embezzled <\/p>\n
huge amount of more than Rs. 72 lacs, thus,  he committed fraud upon <\/p>\n
the company of which the appellant had earlier  been an employee and <\/p>\n
at   the   relevant   time,   a   Retainer.     His   illegal   activities   amounted   to <\/p>\n
interference in the administration of justice, thus, the High Court has <\/p>\n
rightly   convicted   the   appellant   and   imposed   the   maximum   sentence <\/p>\n
                                                                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
provided under the Act 1971.  The facts and circumstances of the case <\/p>\n
do not require any interference by this Court, the appeals lack merit <\/p>\n
and are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.      We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   made   by   learned <\/p>\n
counsel for the parties and perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
        The facts are not in dispute, the findings of fact recorded by the <\/p>\n
High Court do not require any interference for the reason that nothing <\/p>\n
has   been   shown   to   us   on   the   basis   of   which   it   can   be   held   that   the <\/p>\n
findings are perverse, are  based on no evidence or are contrary to the <\/p>\n
evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
10.     The issue regarding the application of the provisions of Rule 7 <\/p>\n
of the Rules 1981 has to be dealt with elaborately.  The appellant, for <\/p>\n
the reasons best known to him, did   not agitate this issue before the <\/p>\n
High   Court   and   no   explanation   has   been   furnished   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the appellant as under what circumstances, the <\/p>\n
question of fact is being agitated first time in criminal appeals before <\/p>\n
this Court.   More so, such an issue cannot be agitated in absence of <\/p>\n
any   application   under   Section   391   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure, <\/p>\n
1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) for taking the additional evidence on <\/p>\n
                                                                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
record,   nor   any   document   has   been   filed   even   before   this   Court   to <\/p>\n
establish that the said provisions have not been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
11.     In P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 1208, <\/p>\n
this Court while considering the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) and (b) <\/p>\n
of the Act 1971 and the Contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975, held <\/p>\n
that   if   any   information   was   lodged   even   in   the   form   of   a   petition <\/p>\n
inviting the Court to take action under the Act 1971 or the provisions <\/p>\n
of   the   Constitution   dealing   with   the   contempt   of   court,   where   the <\/p>\n
informant is not one of the persons  named  in Section 15 of the Act <\/p>\n
1971, it should not be styled as a petition and should not be placed for <\/p>\n
admission on the judicial side of the court.  Such a petition is required <\/p>\n
to be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chambers and the <\/p>\n
Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation with the <\/p>\n
other   Judges   of   the   Court,   whether   to   take   any   cognizance   of   the <\/p>\n
information.     Thus,   in   a   case   where   the   Attorney   General\/Advocate <\/p>\n
General refuses to give the consent to initiate contempt proceedings;\n<\/p>\n
the aforesaid course is mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
12.     In  State   of  Kerala  v.  M.S.  Mani  & Ors.,<\/a>  (2001)  8  SCC  82, <\/p>\n
this Court held that the requirement of obtaining prior consent of the <\/p>\n
Advocate   General   in   writing   for   initiating   proceedings   of   criminal <\/p>\n
contempt is mandatory and failure to obtain the prior consent would <\/p>\n
render the motion non-maintainable. In case, a party obtains consent <\/p>\n
subsequent   to  filing   the   petition,   it   would  not  cure   the  initial   defect <\/p>\n
and thus, the petition would not become  maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
13.     In  Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute  & Anr., AIR<\/a> 2005 <\/p>\n
SC 396, this Court held that in absence of the consent of the Advocate <\/p>\n
General   in   respect   of   a   criminal   contempt     filed   by   a   party   under <\/p>\n
Section   15   of   the   Act   1971,   taking   suo   motu   action   for     contempt <\/p>\n
without a prayer, was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
14.     However,   in  Amicus   Curiae   v.   Prashant   Bhushan   &   Anr.,<\/a> <\/p>\n
(2010)   7   SCC   592,   this   Court   has   considered   the   earlier   judgments <\/p>\n
and held that in a rare case,  even if the cognizance deemed to have <\/p>\n
been taken in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, without the consent <\/p>\n
of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, the proceedings must <\/p>\n
be held to be maintainable in view of the fact that the issue involved <\/p>\n
                                                                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
in the proceedings had far reaching greater ramifications and impact <\/p>\n
on the administration of justice and on the justice delivery system and <\/p>\n
the credibility of the court in the eyes of general public than what was <\/p>\n
under consideration before this Court in earlier cases.\n<\/p>\n
15.     In the instant case, the question of  whether the matter had been <\/p>\n
placed before the Chief Justice in Chambers is a question of fact.  The <\/p>\n
issue has not been agitated before the High Court, rather the complaint <\/p>\n
filed by the Registrar General of the High Court makes it clear that the <\/p>\n
complaint   itself   has   been   filed   on   behalf   of   the   High   Court   by   the <\/p>\n
Advocate General.   It is evident from the record that case CCC(Crl.) <\/p>\n
No. 12 of 2002 has been filed by the Registrar General of the High <\/p>\n
Court of Karnataka (suo motu) through the Advocate General of the <\/p>\n
State.  Therefore, the issue does not require any further consideration <\/p>\n
so far as the procedural aspects are concerned.   Thus, in view of the <\/p>\n
above,   the   objection   raised   by   the   appellant   is   mere   hyper-technical <\/p>\n
and does not want  further consideration.\n<\/p>\n
16.     It   is   evident   that   the   charges   had   been   framed   in   accordance <\/p>\n
with   law   on   22.7.2002   and   that   the   appellant   has   been   given   full <\/p>\n
                                                                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
opportunity to defend himself.   All the documents placed before the <\/p>\n
High Court have been appreciated and considered.\n<\/p>\n
17.     So   far   as   merit   is   concerned,   we   have   been   taken   to   various <\/p>\n
documents   and   to   the   evidence   of   the   witnesses.     There   are   certain <\/p>\n
documents   to   show   that   the   appellant   on   certain   occasions   has   also <\/p>\n
rendered a good service to the company.  Some documents are also on <\/p>\n
record to show that some officials had an intention to misappropriate <\/p>\n
the funds of the company for their personal gain with the connivance <\/p>\n
of   the   appellant.     However,   there   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that <\/p>\n
they could succeed to any extent. Therefore, the defence taken by the <\/p>\n
appellant remains unsubstantiated.  In view of the  material on record, <\/p>\n
it is evident that the huge amount of money has been collected by the <\/p>\n
appellant in the name of his mother-in-law, Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged <\/p>\n
stamp vendor,   and the appellant has been the beneficiary thereof as <\/p>\n
he had operated the Bank Account in her name.\n<\/p>\n
18.     In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501, while dealing <\/p>\n
with a case of similar nature, this Court held as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “….The   sole   object   of   the   court   wielding   its  <\/p>\n
        power   to   punish   for   contempt   is   always   for   the  <\/p>\n
        course   of   administration   of   justice.   Nothing   is  <\/p>\n
                                                                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
        more incumbent upon the courts of justice than to  <\/p>\n
        preserve   their   proceedings   from   being  <\/p>\n
        misrepresented,   nor   is   there   anything   more  <\/p>\n
        pernicious   when   the   order   of   the   court   is   forged  <\/p>\n
        and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal  <\/p>\n
        contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean  <\/p>\n
        interference   with   the   administration   of   justice   in  <\/p>\n
        any   manner.   A   false   or   misleading   or   a   wrong  <\/p>\n
        statement   deliberately   and   wilfully   made   by   a  <\/p>\n
        party   to   the   proceedings   to   obtain   a   favourable  <\/p>\n
        order   would   undoubtedly   tantamount   to  <\/p>\n
        interference   with   the   due   course   of   judicial  <\/p>\n
        proceedings.  When   a   person   is   found   to   have  <\/p>\n
        utilised   an   order   of   a   court   which   he   or   she  <\/p>\n
        knows   to   be   incorrect   for   conferring   benefit   on  <\/p>\n
        persons who are not entitled to the same, the very  <\/p>\n
        utilisation   of   the   fabricated   order   by   the   person  <\/p>\n
        concerned   would   be   sufficient   to   hold   him\/her  <\/p>\n
        guilty   of   contempt,   irrespective   of   the   fact  <\/p>\n
        whether he or she himself or herself is the author  <\/p>\n
        of fabrication…..” (Emphasis added). <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
19.     It is evident from the evidence on record that the appellant had <\/p>\n
been   the   beneficiary   of   fraud   alleged   in   these   cases.   Therefore,   in <\/p>\n
view   of   the   law   referred   to   hereinabove,   he   is   guilty   of  committing <\/p>\n
contempt   of   court.   The   appellant   had   been   an   employee   of   the <\/p>\n
respondent   company   and   because   of   that   relationship   he   had   been <\/p>\n
retained   as   an   Advocate   and   he   has   a   duty   towards   his   clients   to <\/p>\n
behave   in   an     appropriate   manner   and   to   protect   the   dignity   of   the <\/p>\n
court.   The conduct of the appellant has been reprehensible   and it is <\/p>\n
tantamount to as if  the fence established to protect the crop starting to <\/p>\n
                                                                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
eat the crop itself. Thus, such  misconduct has to be dealt with, with a <\/p>\n
heavy hand.\n<\/p>\n
20.     We   do   find   any   force   in   the   submissions   made   by   learned <\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant  that the conviction of the appellant in these <\/p>\n
cases would prejudice  his cause in the pending criminal trial for the <\/p>\n
reason   that   both   cases   are   separate   and   for   offences   of   a   different <\/p>\n
nature.   It was the duty of the appellant to protect the dignity of the <\/p>\n
court through which he has earned his livelihood.\n<\/p>\n
21.     The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that <\/p>\n
both   complaints   could   not   have   been   clubbed   together   and   the <\/p>\n
evidence   recorded   in   the   case   lodged   by   the   respondent   company <\/p>\n
could not have been read in suo motu contempt proceedings initiated <\/p>\n
by the High Court, is preposterous, for the reason that they were not <\/p>\n
cross   cases     and   in   both   the   cases,   criminal   proceedings   had   been <\/p>\n
initiated on the basis of  the same documents and the same allegations.\n<\/p>\n
It is a case of betrayal of faith by a lawyer of his clients, in a case of <\/p>\n
professional engagement.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
22.     We also do not find any force in the submission advanced on <\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant  that he has already served 36 days in jail, thus, <\/p>\n
the   punishment   imposed   by   the   High   Court   may   be   reduced.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the gravity of the charges, such a course is not warranted <\/p>\n
and no lenient  view is permissible in the facts and circumstances of <\/p>\n
the cases.\n<\/p>\n
23.     In view of the above, the appeals lack merit and are accordingly <\/p>\n
dismissed.   We   request   the   learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate, <\/p>\n
Bangalore to take the appellant into custody   and send him to jail to <\/p>\n
serve   the   remaining   part   of   the   sentence   forthwith.     A   copy   of   the <\/p>\n
order may be transmitted by the Registry of this Court to the learned <\/p>\n
Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Bangalore   for   taking   appropriate   further <\/p>\n
steps.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            (P. SATHASIVAM)<\/p>\n
                                                            ………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
March  14, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1038-1039 OF 2004 B.N. Shivanna …Appellant Versus Advanta India Limited & Anr. …Respondents J U D G […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-17T20:06:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T20:06:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3170,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\",\"name\":\"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T20:06:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-17T20:06:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T20:06:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011"},"wordCount":3170,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011","name":"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T20:06:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-shivanna-vs-advanta-india-ltd-anr-on-14-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr on 14 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=182487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182487\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}