Sri. P. Subramani vs Sri. Sathyanarayana. T. N
2022 Latest Caselaw 2706 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2706 Kant
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Sri. P. Subramani vs Sri. Sathyanarayana. T. N on 17 February, 2022

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                            1
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1422/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. P. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE V.A. PERIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.12, 4TH CROSS
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010
                                       ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA. T. N
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.478, 15TH CROSS
JAKKUR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 064
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.V. HARISH, ADVOCATE)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.05.2018, PASSED BY THE
XXIII ACMM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY IN
C.C.NO.7015/2016,   ACQUITTING   THE   RESPONDENT/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I.ACT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      2
                          JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant called-out. Absent.

Sri. H.V. Harish, the learned counsel appearing for respondent/accused is physically present before the Court.

This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant herein against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.05.2018 passed by the XXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City in CCNo.7015/2016, in respect of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Order Sheet discloses that, all along there was no representation on behalf of the appellant/complainant. Even on 13.01.2022, this Court has adjourned the matter finally by four weeks and in spite of the same, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has not appeared before the Court to prosecute the case. It indicates that, the appellant/complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*