K Kotrabasappa vs R Rajashekar
2022 Latest Caselaw 10233 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                             BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.421 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

K. KOTRABASAPPA
S/O. KOTRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.62, 6TH CROSS
N.S. PALYA, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560076.
                                               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A.B. SIDDARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

R. RAJASHEKAR,
S/O. H. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.58, R.B.I. LAYOUT,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
                                                 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. RAJASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)


       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
XXII    A.C.M.M.   BANGALORE,   IN    C.C.NO.26121/2007   DATED
1-06-2011 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICE,
FTC-VII, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.415/2011 DATED 1-12-2011, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                                                Crl.R.P.No.421/2012
                              2


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

None appear in this matter either physically or

through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for

their non-appearance.

2. The present petition is the one filed by accused

No.2 in the trial Court challenging the confirmation of his

conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

remained absent consecutively on several dates of hearing.

On 15.06.2022, the respondent who was appearing as

party-in-person submitted that according to information

given to him, the petitioner is dead.

4. In view of the above, i.e., due to

non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and also the submission from the respondent about the Crl.R.P.No.421/2012

alleged death of the petitioner, this Court ordered for

issuance of emergent notice upon the petitioner. The said

notice is not served and the police report would state that

the said address was not traced. In that regard,

they have also drawn a panchanama. Thus, in spite of the

best efforts, the petitioner could not be served with

emergent court notice and the learned counsel for the

petitioner also has remained absent and is not appearing

in the matter. According to the respondent, the petitioner

is reported to be dead. However, there are no other

documents to corroborate the said submission.

5. In the light of the above, though generally a

criminal revision petition would not be dismissed for

non-prosecution, however, in the instant case, the criminal

case from which the present revision petition has arisen is

of the year 2007, as such, it is 15 years old matter.

Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

consecutively remained absent, the emergent notice

ordered upon the petitioner has also returned as unserved.

Crl.R.P.No.421/2012

Lastly, according to the respondent, the petitioner is dead.

In view of the same, the petition deserves to be dismissed

for non-prosecution.

Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TL