Karnataka High Court
Syed Atheek Ahamed vs Smt. Nagamma on 11 January, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1192 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Syed Atheek Ahamed,
S/o Syed Ahamed,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.1287/23,
Yadg ar Mohalla,
Channapatna Town,
Pin-571501.
...Petitioner
(By Sri A.N.Radha Krishna, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Nag amma,
W/o Ravikumar,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o Jettigara Beedhi,
Kote, Channap atna Town,
Ramanag ara Town,
Pin-571511.
...Respondent
(Respond ent - served)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channap atna
in C.C.No.552/2015, dated 29.11.2019, convicting the
petitioner/accused for the offence punishab le under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act and etc.,
:: 2 ::
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
admission through video conferencing this d ay, the
Court mad e the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel
for the petitioner at the time of admission.
Respondent is served with notice, but there is no
representation on her behalf.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order
dated 29.03.2021 passed by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram,
dismissing his appeal, Crl.A.No.15/2020. It was
an appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging
the judgment of the Magistrate in
C.C.No.552/2015 convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay fine of
Rs.2,05,000/-.
3. The petitioner has produced the order
sheet of the proceedings in the appeal, which
:: 3 ::
shows that on 24.03.2021, a submission was made
by the Advocates for the parties that there was a
likelihood of compromise and therefore the case
was adjourned to 29.03.2021. On 29.03.2021,
counsel for the appellant made a submission that
his client had taken back the brief from him along
with NOC and therefore the case was again called
at 1.40pm. At that time the appellant was not
present in the Court hall and therefore the appeal
came to be dismissed for non prosecution.
4. Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
ready for compromising the matter with the
respondent and in fact he was ready in the
appellate Court itself. That apart, if the
proceeding before the Sessions Court is seen, it
appears that the appellate Court hastened to
dismiss the appeal for non prosecution.
:: 4 ::
5. When a submission was made in the
early hours on 29.03.2021 that the appellant had
taken back the file from the counsel, the matter
could have been adjourned to enable the appellant
to engage another Advocate. In this view, I am of
the opinion that the appellant has been denied of a
reasonable opportunity of putting forth his case.
Therefore, I do not find that the order of
dismissing the appeal for default can be sustained.
Hence the following:
ORDER
Revision Petition is allowed.
The order dated 29.03.2021, passed
by the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram,
dismissing the appeal in
Crl.A.No.15/2020 is set-aside.
The said criminal appeal is restored
to the file of the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram. The
appellate Court is directed to dispose of
the appeal in accordance with law.
:: 5 ::
The appellant and the respondent
shall appear before the appellate Court
on 01.02.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv/-
