High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 KAR CK 0265

Suresha K vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 5 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.V. Pinto, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal P. No. 4083 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 359 words

B.V. Pinto

1.

This petition is filed seeking for a direction to run the sentences Imposed in C.C.No. 1364/2007, C.C.No. 17453/2007 & C.C.No.

37382/2006 concurrently.

2.

The petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 454, 457 & 380 IPC in C.C.No. 1364/2007 on 9.11.2007 and sentenced to

undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; the petitioner has been further convicted for an offence u/s 380 IPC in C.C.No.

17453/2007 by order dated 18.3.2008 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the petitioner is also

convicted for the offences under Sections 457 & 380 JPC in C.C.No. 37382/2006 by Judgment dated 2.4.2008 and sentenced to undergo S.I.

for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with the default clauses in each of the sentences. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions

Judge in Crl.R.P.No-91/2011 & 92/2011 c/w. Crl.R.P.93/2011, but the learned Sessions Judge has declined to pass an order directing the

sentences to run concurrently.

3.

Heard Sri Arvind M. Neglur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Satisn R Girji, learned HCGP for the Respondent/State.

4.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since July 2007 and that he has already suffered sentence

of 4 years. It is also further submitted by him that the petitioner is aged about 25 years and his age old parents are dependant on his earnings for

their livelihood. Hence, he submits that the order of sentence may be directed to run concurrently.

5.

Heard Sri Satish R.Girji, learned HCGP for the Respondent/State also.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. The sentences imposed on the petitioner in the above said 3 cases

are directed to run concurrently and having regard to the fact that the default sentences are for three months each, it is held that the petitioner has

also suffered the default sentence and hence, the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other cases. Petition is

accordingly allowed.