Keshavamurthy Ashok vs Sri. Sushil Kumar Jain
2022 Latest Caselaw 9611 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE

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

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.522 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

KESHAVAMURTHY ASHOK
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT GURREDDY BUILDING,
DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS, MARGONDANAHALLI,
ANANDAPURA, J.C.PALYA,
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-36.                       ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.NAGARAJA.N., ADV. - ABSENT)

AND

SRI. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN
S/O DHARMACHAND JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT DHARMACHAND,
SUSHILKUMAR JAIN,
PAWN BROKER,
R.M.NAGAR,
BANGALORE-16.                                  ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri.D.S.MALIPATIL, ADV.)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed u/S.397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated
08.11.2016 in C.C.No.51245/2013 on the file of the XIV
A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bangalore and order dated 01.02.2019
                                              Crl.R.P.No.522/2019
                              2


passed in Crl.A.No.25065/2016 on the file of the IV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-21)
Bangalore.

      This Crl.R.P. coming on for Orders, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
                         ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner is neither present

physically nor through video conferencing.

A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that inspite

of granting several and sufficient opportunities of not less

than five times, the petitioner has neither complied the

office objections nor shown any reasons for non-compliance

of office objections. On 04.04.2022, even in the absence of

the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court had

granted one week's time for compliance of office objections,

however, imposing a cost of `1,000/- payable at the

Registry. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has neither

paid the cost nor complied the office objections nor even

shown the reasons for non-compliance of office objections.

Hence, the revision petition stands dismissed for non-

Crl.R.P.No.522/2019

compliance of office objections as well as for non-

prosecution.

The cost of `1,000/- imposed by this Court on 04.04.2022

be treated as arrears of land revenue and Registry to take

steps to recover the same in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-