Bashirahmed Khatalsab ... vs Mohammed Iqbal Mehaboobsab Doni
2022 Latest Caselaw 1008 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2675 OF 2012
Between :

Shri Bashirahmed Khatalsab Hanchinamani,
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. No.3703, Darbar Galli,
Belgaum.                                         .. Appellant

 ( By Sri Ramesh N. Misale, Advocate )

And :

  1. Mohammed Iqbal Mehaboobsab Doni,
     Age: Major, Occ: Business,
     R/o. Bazi Market,
     Shop No.82,
     Belgaum.

  2. Sadiq Bashirahmed Hanchinmani,
     Age: 32 years,
     Occ: Business,
     R/o. Shop No.1906/1A,
     Kadolkar Galli,
     Belgaum.                       .. Respondents

 ( By Sri M.M.Patil, Advocate for R-1
   and Sri Sajid I. Goodwala & Sri Vyas Desai,
   Advocates for R-2 )

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C. praying set aside the judgment dated 04.10.2011
                                                   Crl.A.No.2675/2012
                                 2


passed in C.C.No.676/2005, by the J.M.F.C. II Court,
Belgaum, and convict the accused for the offence as pleaded,
in the ends of promoting justice.

      This Criminal Appeal is coming on for Hearing through
Video Conference this day, the Court made the following :

                              ORDER

Called again in the afternoon. None appear in this

matter even through virtual mode. No reasons are

forthcoming for non-appearance of learned counsels in the

matter.

2. A perusal of the material placed before this Court

would go to show that this is an appeal filed by the

complainant seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment

passed by the trial Court acquitting the present respondents

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and seeking their conviction.

3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that

the present appeal is of the year 2012, as such, one of the

old appeal of this nature pending before this Court. In spite of

granting several and sufficient opportunities, even as finally and as Crl.A.No.2675/2012

last chance, the appellant has not proceeded further in

addressing his arguments. Even on previous dates of

hearing i.e., on 29.09.2021 and 27.10.2021 also, learned

counsel for the appellant had remained absent.

4. Though a Criminal Appeal would not generally be

dismissed for non-prosecution, however, the present appeal

is not against the judgment of conviction, but, it is against

the judgment of acquittal, that too, for an alleged offence

punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Thus, when the

complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the

appeal, there is no point in keeping this old appeal, which

actually originates from the Criminal Case of the year 2005,

still pending on the file. As such, the appeal can be

dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. Though the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

dated 18.01.2022 is in force, it has only mandated for

conducting of Court proceedings through virtual mode.

It does not give any exemption from appearance of the

learned counsels in the matter by virtual mode and Crl.A.No.2675/2012

proceeding further in the matter by addressing their

arguments.

6. So when the matter is listed for final hearing, after

considering the guidelines issued under prevailing SOP, it

was required of the learned counsel for the appellant to

appear virtually and to proceed further in this appeal by

addressing his arguments. Since showing no reasons, the

appellant through his counsel has remained absent, the

Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/