IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.498/2018 Between:
Sri RajaramKhandige Son Late Dr. Krishna Bhat Aged about 68 years Residing at No.28, 5th Cross Koramangala Bangalore – 560 095.
...Petitioner (By Sri K.S. Harish, Advocate) And:
1. Karnataka Financial Services Limited No.13, Krishna Reddy Layout Domlur Bangalore – 560 038.
Company is under Liquidation as per The orders Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Co.P.No.178/2004 Before winding up Earlier represented by its Executive Director Sri Rajaram Khandige Son of Late Dr.K. Krishna Bhat Presently represented by Official Liquidator attached to High Court of Karnataka Raheja Towers, 11th Floor Near Kids Kemp, Mahatma Gandhi Road Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Sri Suresh M. Shenoy Son of C.M. Shenoy Aged about 57 years Residing at Chanappa Layout Gandhinagar Main Road Shimoga – 577 201.
3. S.B. Angadi Son of B.Basalingappa Aged about 49 years Residing at No.3143/2, 9th Main 4th Cross, MCCB ‘B’ Block Davanagere – 577 004.
4. Sri Dr.T.G. Niranjan Son of Gurudiddappa Aged about 67 years Resident of No.3267, Shamanur Road MCC ‘B’ Block Davanagere – 577 004. ... Respondents This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order of conviction dated 17.10.2014, assailed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.128/2014, dated 15.02.2018 and etc., This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The office has raised objection that though the present petitioner is not arraigned as accused before the Courts below then how he can file the present petition challenging the order of conviction passed by the Courts below.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the present petitioner is not an accused in his individual capacity before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and he has not been convicted in the said case, the trial Court has issued arrest warrant against the present petitioner herein as a representative of accused No.1-Company. Having no other remedy, the present petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application before the Court below contending the above said facts and the said application has been dismissed. It is his submission that against the said order, he has already preferred a criminal petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 4. It is further submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have preferred criminal revision petition before this Court challenging the order of conviction and this Court has suspended the sentence order. It is further submitted that in the order of the trial Court, there is no clarity with regard to sentence and conviction passed by the trial Court. In that light, it is submitted that clarity is required and as such, he has filed the present revision petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the said submission.
6. Insofar as the clarity of the order in C.C.No.1432/2009 is concerned, accused Nos.2 and 3 have already challenged the said order before this Court in criminal revision petition. The said issue can be adjudicated in the said revision petition. In that light, liberty has been left open to the accused to get clarity in the petition.
7. In the light of the discussion held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that since the present petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused and if at all any rights have been affected, he has already filed criminal petition before this Court challenging the order passed by the Court below.
8. In the light of the said facts and circumstances and grounds urged in this petition have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the criminal petition and also taking into consideration of the criminal revision petition filed by accused Nos.2 and 3, the present revision petition is not maintainable and accordingly, it is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE nms