R Ramakrishnaiah vs Jayashankar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7930 Kant

                              1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                            BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2080/2016

BETWEEN

R. RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
S/O. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.474, K.G. LAYOUT,
LAGGERE RING ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 058.                        ... APPELLANT

[BY SRI. ANANTHAPADMANABHA G.N., ADVOCATE (ABSENT]

AND

JAYASHANKAR,
S/O. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.72/A, HASSAN IYENGAR'S BAKERY,
16TH MAIN, TAVAREKERE ROAD,
BTM 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 079.                       ... RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. S. VASANTHA MADHAVA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]

                             ***
      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.12.2014 PASSED BY THE XIX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.22326/2009 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2




                         JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the complainant against

the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in

respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I. Act.

2. Appeal was filed on 06.12.2016. The order

sheet discloses that on several occasions the learned

counsel for appellant remained absent and a peremptory

order was passed on 18.12.2019, that if there is no

representation for the appellant on the next date of

hearing, the appeal will be dismissed for non-

prosecution. Thereafter, when the appeal was listed on

08.01.2020, none appeared for the appellant as well as

respondent. However, on 21.01.2020, there was

representation and special leave to prosecute the appeal

was granted and insofar as I.A No.2/2016 seeking

condonation of delay is concerned, it was observed that

the same will be considered along with main appeal.

Thereafter, the appeal was listed on 26.05.2022.

However, there was no representation for the appellant

on the said date and therefore, the appeal is listed today

specifically observing that if there is no representation

the appeal shall be dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. Even today, there is no representation for the

appellant. This being an appeal against an order of

acquittal, it appears that the appellant is not interested

in prosecuting the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal along with I.A No.1/2016 is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HB/-