M/S Sony Tractors vs Dyamanna Pakkirappa Alur
2022 Latest Caselaw 752 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

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


            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2667 OF 2013
Between :

M/s.Sony Tractors,
Laxmi Plaza, P.B.Road,
Hubli, Represented by its Proprietor,
Miss. Diana,
D/o Balwantkumar Gundimi,
Age: 24 years, R/o Hubli,
Dist: Dharwad.                                 .. Appellant

 ( By Sri Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, Advocate )

And :

Sri Dyamanna Pakkirappa Alur,
Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Marambid, Tal: Hanagal,
Dist: Haveri.                                  .. Respondent

 ( By Sri H.R.Gundappa, Advocate )

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2013, passed by
Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubli, in C.C.No.527 of
2012 and respondent No.1-accused may kindly be convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and
Section 420 of IPC and the appellant may kindly be
compensated out of the penalty amount being imposed on
                                                 Crl.A.No.2667/2013
                                2


the respondent No.1-accused, by allowing this appeal with
costs.

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

                             ORDER

None appear for the appellant either physically or

through Video Conference.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent alone is

physically present in the Court.

3. This matter was called in the morning session and

after refusing the request for adjournment made by the

learned counsel for the appellant, the matter was passed

over. It was made clear to the learned counsel for the

appellant that in case if he does not proceed further in

addressing his arguments as the appeal is of the year 2013,

the Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders, including

appointing an Amicus Curiae in the matter or dismissing the

appeal for non-prosecution. In spite of the said direction,

learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent when

the case is taken up.

Crl.A.No.2667/2013

4. Though a criminal appeal would not generally be

dismissed for non-prosecution, however, this appeal is not

against the conviction, but, it is against the judgment of

acquittal for an offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, in view of the fact

that, in spite of making it clear that no adjournment would

be granted in the matter, the learned counsel for the

appellant has remained absent showing no reasons as such,

the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/