Sanaulla vs Ilyas Shrieff
2022 Latest Caselaw 13115 Kant

                           1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1671/2017

BETWEEN:
SANAULLA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O RAZULLA
RESIDENT OF NO.32
1ST CROSS, SAGAYAPURAM
DAVIS ROAD CROSS
BANGALORE-560 045
NOW RESIDING AT NO.64/2
GROUND FLOOR, KRISHNAPPA COMPLEX
RAJA RAM R BADE, KAVALBYSANDRA
BENGALURU-560 032
                                             ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASLAM KHAN .M, ADVOCATE)

AND:
ILYAS SHRIEFF
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O HUSSAIN SHARIEF
RESIDENT OF NO.10, FIRST FLOOR
4TH CROSS, KEMPAIAH LAYOUT
J.C. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
                                           ...RESPONDENT

(SOLE RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL DATED 11.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LVII
                                 2


ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.52079/2014-ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I.ACT.

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

                      JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial

Court. The offence alleged under Section 138 of NI Act

regarding bouncing of cheque. Challenging the acquittal

order the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal before

this Court under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

2. The matter was initially heard and reserved for

judgment. While verifying the records, the Court has

noticed that as per submission dated 07.06.2021, the

appellant was no more and the said fact was not brought to

the notice of the Court while arguing the matter. Hence, the

matter was again posted for further hearing and then the

learned counsel for the appellant submits that by

inadvertence he did not bring to the notice of Court while

arguing the matter and he seeks two weeks time to take

appropriate steps to bring the legal heirs of the appellant.

Since January 2022, no steps were taken and the statement

recording death of appellant was made on 07.06.2021 itself.

Inspite of more than one year, no steps were taken to bring

the legal heirs of deceased appellant. Under these

circumstances, the question of continuing the appeal does

not arise at all.

Accordingly, the appeal stands abated in view of death

of appellant/complainant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NS CT:NR