Karnataka High Court
T A Manhoranjan vs B M Kariappa on 29 June, 2021
Author: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.972 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
T.A. Manhoranjan,
S/o. late Appukuttan,
Aged about 39 years,
Timber Merchant,
R/a Near D.F.O. Bangalow,
Convent Road, Madikeri,
Kodagu District - 571201.
..Petitioner
(By Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, Advocate)
AND:
B.M. Kariappa,
S/o. late Madappa,
Aged 66 years,
R/a College Road,
Madikeri,
Kodagu District - 571 201.
.. Respondent
****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set
aside the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.568/2014
dated 10-04-2015 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C. at Madikeri and the judgment and order confirming
Crl.R.P.No.972/2019
2
the Trial Court judgment and sentence passed in
Crl.A.No.41/2015 dated 09-07-2019 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, and grant any
other relief as this court deems fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders,
through Physical hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Called again.
Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video
conference submits that, he has sent the retirement notice to the
petitioner.
2. A perusal of the order sheet in this matter would go to
show that the petitioner, after obtaining an interim order of stay
of the impugned judgment of his conviction, has not evinced any
interest in ensuring the service of notice upon the
respondent/complainant. In that regard, sufficient opportunities
were given to the petitioner, even as a last chance, final chance,
etc.
3. On 08-06-2021, as a last chance, ten days' time, as
prayed for was granted. Thereafter, on 21-06-2021, this Court
made the following observation in this matter:
Crl.R.P.No.972/2019
" Learned counsel for the petitioner has remained
absent.
A perusal of the order sheets would go to show that
on the previous two dates of hearing also the learned
counsel for the petitioner has remained absent. The
petition is of the year 2019 and despite granting sufficient
opportunities even as last chance also, the petitioner has
not taken steps to ensure the service of notice upon the
respondent. As such, as finally, a week's accommodation is
granted making it clear that in case the steps are not taken,
the Court may proceed to pass appropriate order including
vacating interim order granted earlier or dismissing the
petition for not taking steps.
List the matter on 29.06.2021."
4. In spite of the above, since the petitioner is not
evincing any interest in taking appropriate steps to ensure
service of notice upon the un-served respondent (complainant),
but enjoying the benefit of the interim order, I am of the view
that, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.
5. Though the criminal matter would not be dismissed
generally for non-prosecution, however, the present case is the
one where the petitioner has challenged his confirmation of
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The original case is of the
year 2014, as such, one of the old matters pending in this Court.
Still, the petitioner who is the accused suffering the sentence of
Crl.R.P.No.972/2019
conviction, is not evincing any interest in the matter and not
even taking steps to ensure service of notice upon the
respondent/complainant. As such, the petition deserves to be
dismissed for non-prosecution and for non-taking steps.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed for non-taking
steps.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
