Mr. Chandramohan vs Mr. Rohithaksha Poojary
2022 Latest Caselaw 11284 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                            BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.124 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Mr. Chandramohan
S/o Late M. Rag hava
Aged about 65 years
R/at Sheethal
Opp. Dharmagiri Church
Vamanjoor, Thiruvail-575028
Villag e, Mang aluru Taluk.
                                                     ...Appellant
(By Sri G.L. Mohan Maiya, Advocate)


AND:

Mr. Rohithaksha Poojary
R/at Swami Krip a, Datta
Prasad Layout, Urwa Sulthan Batteri
Boloor B Village
Mang aluru Taluk-575003.
                                                    ...Respondent



     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4)
of CR.P.C. p raying to set asid e the judgment and
order d ated 13.12.2019 passed b y the JMFC IV Court,
Mang aluru,    D.K.,   in   Criminal   Case     No.4622/2016,
acquitting    the   accused/respond ent       for   the   offence
punishab le und er section 138 of the N.I. act.
                                   :: 2 ::


       This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this
day, the Court mad e the following :

                                 ORDER

IA No.1/2021 is filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act. The judgment of acquittal was

passed on 13.12.2019. The appeal was filed on

12.11.2020.

2. Perusal of the application filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not disclose

sufficient cause for the delay of 275 days in filing

the appeal. It is simply stated that the appellant

was suffering from viral fever and other old age

ailments; he was hospitalized due to viral fever

and he was advised to take bed rest for one

month. It does not disclose when the

appellant was hospitalized and when he was

discharged. Added to this, the verifying affidavit

was notarized on 31.10.2020, but the appeal was

filed on 12.11.2020. Again there is a delay. In

this view, I do not find any good reason to :: 3 ::

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Issuance of

notice to respondent is also not necessary.

Therefore IA No.1/2021 is dismissed.

Consequently appeal is also dismissed.

IA No.2/2021 does not survive for

consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-