Shri.Sadanand S/O Gadegeppa ... vs Shri.Kallappa S/O Tamanappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12181 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

        CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100289 OF 2015
Between :

Shri Sadanand,
S/o Gadigeppa Turmandi,
Age: 58 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o Shri Sangameshwar Nilaya,
Behind St.Anne's School,
Ext.area Bagalkot,
Tq. & Dist. Bagalkot.                         .. Appellant

 ( By Sri N.L.Batakurki, Advocate )

And :

Shri Kallappa,
S/o Tamanappa Ganiger,
Age : 59 years,
Occ: Business,
C/o Girish Medicals,
Mudalagi, Tq. Gokak,
Dist: Belgavi.                                .. Respondent

 ( By Sri G.B.Naik and Smt.P.G.Naik,
   Advocates )

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. praying to admit the appeal and call for the records
from Court below and set aside the judgment passed by
Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagalkot, in C.C.No.286/2010,
                                           Crl.A.No.100289/2015
                             2


dated 17.10.2015 and convict the accused/respondent herein
for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, in the interest of justice.

      This Criminal Appeal is coming on for Hearing through
Video Conference this day, the Court made the following :

                          ORDER

Called again in the afternoon. None appear in this

matter even through virtual mode.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that

the present petition is of the year 2015, as such, one of the

old appeal of this nature pending before the Court. The

order sheet further reveal that the matter was once

requested to be referred to Mediation Centre in December

2020, for an attempt to be made for settlement, however,

the matter could not be settled between the parties.

Thereafter, even though the matter was listed and called out

on 31.08.2021, 25.11.2021 and 22.12.2021, the counsel for

the appellant has remained absent.

3. Noticing the absence of learned counsel for the

appellant on 31.08.2021 itself, show cause notice was

ordered to be issued to the appellant. Even after the service Crl.A.No.100289/2015

of show cause notice to the appellant, which is evident from

the endorsement made by the registry, the appellant is not

evincing any interest in proceeding further in this appeal.

4. The present appeal is filed by the complainant in the

trial Court challenging the judgment of acquittal of present

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Though a Criminal Appeal

would not generally be dismissed for non-prosecution,

however, the present appeal is not against the judgment of

conviction, but, it is against the judgment of acquittal, that

too, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act. Thus, when the complainant himself is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal, there is no point in

keeping this old appeal, which actually originates from the

Criminal Case of the year 2010, still pending on the file. As

such, the appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. Though the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

dated 18.01.2022 is in prevalence, it has only mandated for

conduction of Court proceedings through virtual mode.

Crl.A.No.100289/2015

It no where gives any exemption from appearance of the

learned counsels in the matter through virtual mode and

proceeding further in the matter by addressing their

arguments.

6. So when the matter is listed for final hearing, after

considering the guidelines issued under prevailing SOP, it

was required by the learned counsel for the appellant to

appear virtually and proceed further in this appeal by

addressing his arguments. Since showing no reasons, the

appellant through his counsel has remained absent, the

Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/