Sri. B. K. Vishwanatha vs Sri. Chandrashekhara
2022 Latest Caselaw 10745 Kant

                           1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.902 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
SRI. B.K.VISHWANATHA
SON OF KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT HANABALU VILLAGE,
POST AND HOBLI, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK,
HASSANA DISTRICT.
                                 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARA
SON OF MANJAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SUPERVISOR,
DECCAN COFFEE CURING WORKS
KANDILI VILLAGE,
HASSANA TALUK,
HASSANA DISTRICT.
                                   ... RESPONDENT

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED
19.11.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
SAKALESHAPURA IN C.C.NO.640/2017, WHEREIN THE
RESPONDENT HAS BEEN ACQUITTED AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
                              2



                          ORDER

This appeal is preferred by the complainant

challenging the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court,

whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of

an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

2. There is a delay of 514 days in preferring the

appeal. I.A No.1/2021 is filed to condone the delay.

3. I have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit

accompanying the said application. It is stated that after

the judgment of acquittal was passed, the complainant

consulted his counsel and the appeal was also drafted

and kept ready. But on account of heart problem, which

the appellant was facing from the past four years and

which aggravated during the month of January, he was

advised to take two months complete rest. Further, the

complainant could not consult his counsel on account of

his back pain.

4. There is not a single piece of document placed in

support of the reasons assigned in the affidavit

accompanying the application. The reasons stated are

vague and cannot be accepted.

5. There is an inordinate delay of 514 days in

preferring the appeal. There is no satisfactory

explanation for the said delay in preferring the appeal.

As such, I find no reason to allow I.A No.1/2021.

Accordingly, the following Order.

ORDER

I.A No.1/2021 is dismissed. Consequently I.A

No.2/2021 and appeal are dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

VS