Kutch Digital Zone vs Sri Satish B Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 10862 Kant

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.693 OF 2015

BETWEEN:
KUTCH DIGITAL ZONE
UNIT SB-8/9/10, MANIPAL CENTER, 47
DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042
BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. GOVIND MAHADEV PATEL,
                                   ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOVIND MAHADEV PATEL., APPELLANT)

AND:

1.     SRI. SATISH B SHARMA
       S/O B.N.SHARMA
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       NO.15, AMRAI APARTMENTS
       VESAMALA, CANNEGA CORNER
       NASIK-422 003
       ALSO AT 121/125, ASHOKA PLAZA
       CORPORATE SOFTWARE PARK
       NAGAR ROAD, VIMANNAGAR
       PUNE-411014

2.     M/S BALAJI ENTERPRISES
       NO.15, AMRAI APARTMENTS
       VESAMALA, CANNEGA CORNER,
       NASIK-422 003
                                       ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.2.2015
                               2

PASSED      BY   THE    24TH A.C.M.M., BANGALORE,
IN C.C.NO.27645/2011- ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
138 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,

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

                       JUDGMENT

In this case the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant was permitted to retire vide order dated

08.01.2021, accepting the memo filed by him,

accompanied with the letter issued to the appellant and

the postal acknowledgment. Thereafter Court notice was

issued to the appellant. As per police report, the Court

notice was served on 19.01.2021. Since there was no

representation for the appellant, case was listed before

this Court on 28.6.2022 and Court notice was re-issued

to the appellant. It was observed that inspite of service

of Court notice, if there is no representation, the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

2. The police report shows that the Court notice

re-issued to the appellant was served on 6.7.2022.

However, there is no representation for the appellant.

3. This appeal is preferred against an order of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court, acquitting the

respondent/accused of an offence punishable under

Section 138 of N.I Act. It appears that the appellant is

not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, there is

no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.

Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

SD/-

JUDGE

VS