Skip to content


T. Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. K. Shyama Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ459
AppellantT. Krishnamurthy and ors.
RespondentK. Shyama Rao and anr.
Excerpt:
.....direction to consider the market value of the vehicle through a proper valuer and confiscate 1/4th of its value to the government and return the remaining sum to the respondent/owner held, when once the vehicle is confiscated, the entire value of such vehicle would go to the state. the fast track court relying upon the provisions of the tripura forest act, passed the impugned order. when the tripura forest act is not applicable to the karnataka forest act, question of applying the provisions of law of different state and directing the state government to confiscate only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle does not arise. impugned order was quashed. .....response to the summons issued to them i. e., after the court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons, they raised a few contentions and one of them was that the complaint was not maintainable as there was already an appeal pending as against the order said to have been relied upon in the complaint. the learned magistrate has rejected this contention.3. from what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, it is clear that the order in question is an interlocutory order within the meaning of section 397 (2), cr.pc4. it is also clear that no criminal revision petition could have been filed by the petitioners as section 397 (2) cr. p. c prevents this court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in suoh matters. in order to circumvent this legal hurdle the petitioners have.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.S. Nesargi, J.

1. This petition is filed Under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying that inherent powers of this Court be invoked to set aside the order dated 1-12-1976 (passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (VI Court) Bangalore City, in C. C No. 837 of 1975.

2. The few necessary facts are that the said case was registered on a private complaint instituted on 21-6-1975. After the petitioners appeared in response to the summons issued to them i. e., after the Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons, they raised a few contentions and one of them was that the complaint was not maintainable as there was already an appeal pending as against the order said to have been relied upon in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has rejected this contention.

3. From what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, it is clear that the order in question is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2), Cr.PC

4. It is also clear that no criminal revision petition could have been filed by the petitioners as Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C prevents this Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in suoh matters. In order to circumvent this legal hurdle the petitioners have taken recourse to the provisions in Section 482 Cr.PC

5. It has been repeatedly laid down by this Court that taking recourse to the provisions of Section 482, Cr.PC in order to circumvent the provisions in Section 397 (2), Cr.PC is not permissible. Hence this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed,


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //