Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5029 (KAR)

HANUMANTASA S/O CHANDANNA KATAWA v. GURUNATHSA S/O TUKARAMASA DEVALE

CRL.RP/100187/2024 · 2025-04-25

V Srishananda

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6881 CRL.RP No. 100187 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100187 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANUMANTASA S/O. CHANDANNA KATAWA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HANUMANAHAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.D. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: GURUNATHSA S/O. TUKARAMASA DEVALE, AGE: 76 YEARS, R/O. HANUMANAHAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C. JNAYYASWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, KOPPAL IN CRL. APPEAL NO.6/2022 AND ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHTAGI IN C.C.NO.427/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHTAGI IN C.C.NO. 427/2018 DATED 08.03.2022 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, KOPPAL CRL. APPEAL NO.6/2022 DATED 11.01.2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.25 16:09:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6881 CRL.RP No. 100187 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) A memo is filed by learned counsel for the revision petitioner reporting that accused has undergone the default sentence. Memo reads as under: “The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner served sentence for a period of 6 months as per instruction of the Trial Court Advocate and therefore, the petitioner due to financial insufficiency petitioner couldn’t pay the amount and served the sentence may be taken on record in the interest of justice.” Placing the memo on record, revision petition stands disposed of. However, the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the accused in accordance with law despite the fact that he has undergone imprisonment as a default sentence. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14