Nasiruddin S/O Hazaratsaheb ... vs Balerao S/O Adhar Patil
2022 Latest Caselaw 3028 Kant

                            1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

                 CRL.A. No.100043/2016

BETWEEN:

NASIRUDDIN S/O. HAZARATSAHEB KAMANGAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/O. VEERAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI.
                                           .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI I.D. JALGAR, ADV. &
SRI VIJAY CHINIWAR, ADV.-ABSENT)


AND

1.    BALERAO S/O. ADHAR PATIL,
      AGE ABOUT 80 YEARS,
      R/O. DESHPANDE NAGAR,
      HUBBALLI.

2.    NARESH S/O. BALERAO PATIL,
      AGE MAJOR
      R/O. 1 & 2, A-BLOCK,
      APARNA APARTMENTS,
      DESHPANDE NAGARD,
      HUBBALLI.
                                         .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.G. MALAVADE, ADV. & SRI NANDA MALAVADE, ADV.)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
                                  2


AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED BY THE
1ST JMFC, HUBBALLI, IN C.C.NO.222/2015 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

Case called out twice.

There is no representation on behalf of the appellant.

The appeal is of the year 2016 filed by the complainant

against acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The appeal is admitted on 18.01.2018. Despite granting

sufficient opportunities, parties are not appearing.

On perusal of the order sheet goes to show that the

counsel for the appellant has taken several adjournments,

inspite of that, today also he is absent.

Today, in the morning session, case was called out, there

was no representation and the matter was passed over. In the

afternoon session also there was no representation when the

case is called out. Hence, it appears that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Considering the pendency of the case and non-cooperation

by the appellant, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal for non-

prosecution. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Naa