Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33877 (KAR)

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA v. SRI. CHANNE GOWDA

CRL.RP/1523/2019 · 2025-01-23

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2967 CRL.RP No. 1523 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1523 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT CHELLAHALLI HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TLAUK, BANGALORE-562 163 AND ALSO R/AT D.NO.212/2, 1ST FLOOR NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE NAGASHETTIHALLI BANGALORE-94. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHRIKANTH BADARADINNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAIAH R/AT NO.6, 1ST MAIN OPP. IV CROSS, UAS LAYOUT, NAGASHEETIHALLI, SANJAYANAGARA POST BANGALORE-560094. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVICHANDRA T.C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2967 CRL.RP No. 1523 of 2019 THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C OF PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.8686/2017 DATED 03.11.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.270/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57) BENGALURU AND DIRECT THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AND CHARGED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard The learned counsel for revision petitioner. This matter is listed for admission. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to cross examine the PW1 and the present petition is revision petition and there is a concurrent finding by the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court. On perusal of the order sheet, opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine the witness and inspite of opportunity, he did not cross examine the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2967 CRL.RP No. 1523 of 2019 witness and when the prayer was sought on 31.05.2018, adjourned on cost of Rs.500/- and when case was set- down for cross-examination of PW1 on 18.06.2018 and once again he sought for time and hence taken as no cross and case was set-down for 313 statement and 313 statement was also recorded on 30.06.2018. 3. The counsel for the revision petitioner has also filed an application for recalling and cross-examination of PW1 and the same was also allowed on cost of Rs.500/- and permitted the accused to re-open the case for the purpose of cross of PW1 vide order dated 30.06.2018 and when the case was again set-down for cross-examination on 23.08.2018, once again the accused was absent and there was no representation and hence taken as no cross of PW1. Inspite of it, even an opportunity is given to lead defense evidence by fixing the date on 31.08.2018 and on that day also the counsel was absent and accused was also absent and hence taken as no defense evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2967 CRL.RP No. 1523 of 2019 4. Having taken note of the entire order sheet, the very contention of the revision petitioner’s counsel that no opportunity was given cannot be accepted. In order to invoke the revisional jurisdiction there is no any material before the Court since no cross-examination was made on the PW1. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submits that there was no any such transaction and such contention also cannot be looked into in the absence of cross-examination of PW1 and even though the application was filed for recalling of PW1 and the same was allowed and not utilized the opportunity even for defence evidence also posted the matter and also not utilized the opportunity of leading the defense evidence, when such being the case, question of invoking revisional jurisdiction does not arise in the absence of any material. Hence, I do not find any grounds to exercise revisional jurisdiction - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2967 CRL.RP No. 1523 of 2019 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50