Goutham Kumar S/O Multanmal Jain vs T B Nagaraj S/O T.N. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10250 Kant

                                         -1-




                                                CRL.A No. 100096 of 2019


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
                                       BENCH

                     DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                                      BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100096 OF 2019 (C-)
             BETWEEN:

             1.    GOUTHAM KUMAR S/O MULTANMAL JAIN
                   AGE:55 YEARS, OC. MERCHANT
                   R/O MAIN BAZAAR
                   HOSPETE, BELLARY DISTRICT

                                                             ...APPELLANT

             (BY SRI. M G MALAVADE, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.    T B NAGARAJ S/O T.N. BRAMHASURAAIAH
                   AGE:68 YEARS
                   OCC. PROPRIETOR VARAMAHALAXMI MINERALS
                   R/O: 3ND CROSS, J.P. NAGAR
                   BELLARI ROAD, HOSPETE
                   BELLARY DISTRICT

                                                            ...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA          THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
DANDAGAL     APPEAL THEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Location:    PASSED ON 30.01.2018 IN CR.R. PETITION NO.5041/2017 THEREBY
HIGH COURT
OF           UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE JMFC,
KARNATAKA    II   COURT,    HOSPETE    BY    AWARDING     PROPORTIONATE
DHARWAD
             COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO REV. PETITIONER COMPLAINANT BY
             RESPONDENT-ACCUSED ALONG WITH CONVICTION THEREIN GIVEN
             FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT, TO MEET THE ENDS
             OF JUSTICE.
                             -2-




                                  CRL.A No. 100096 of 2019


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Case called out twice. None present on behalf of the

appellant. The appeal is of the year 2019. Office objections

are not complied with despite granting sufficient time.

Three years have been elapsed in complying with the

office objections. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

However, dismissal of this appeal would not come in

the way of appellant filing a fresh appeal, if the cause

survives.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SH