S Chandrappa vs Sri Veerabhadraiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 11991 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.107/2015

BETWEEN

S CHANDRAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
SRI JEENUSHREE ENTERPRISES
R M C YARD, TIPTUR-572 101,

RESIDING AT SOORAGONDANAHALLI,
KAMALAPURA POST,
TIPTUR TALUK-572 101.

                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G SHANKAR, ADVOCATE -ABSENT)

AND

SRI VEERABHADRAIAH
S/O KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KALLAMBELLA
N.H-4, SIRA TALUK-576 101
TUMKUR DISTRICT
                                       ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
                             2


ORDER DTD.09.01.2015 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, IN CRL.A.NO.86/2013
AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN
C.C.NO.1200/2009, DTD.26.06.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SIRA, TUMKUR
DISTRICT.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

This Revision Petition is of the year 2015. The

matter was admitted on 5.2.2015.

2. The accused/Revision Petitioner has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine

of Rs.4,00,000/-, with default sentence of six months

simple imprisonment.

3. This court, on 16.11.2015 at the request of the

learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner time was

granted by one week for exploring the possibility of

settlement and on 23.11.2015, 17.12.2015, 13.1.2016,

20.1.2016, 16.2.2016, 19.1.2017 and on 27.1.2017 the

matter was adjourned at the request of the learned

counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Today, even after

calling out the case at 4.45 p.m., there is no

representation on behalf of the Revision Petitioner.

It appears that the Revision Petitioner has no

inclination to appear in the matter. Hence, the Revision

Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE PL*