Sri. Prasanna B M vs Sri. Prakash C
2023 Latest Caselaw 10461 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Prasanna B M vs Sri. Prakash C on 13 December, 2023

Author: Rajendra Badamikar

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                                         -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:45420
                                                     CRL.A No. 21 of 2018




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2018
             BETWEEN:

             SRI. PRASANNA .B.M,
             S/O LATE MUDDAIAH,
             AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
             R/A NO.553, 2ND 'B' CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,
             3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
             BANGALORE-560 079.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR .N, ADVOCATE(ABSENT))
             AND:

             SRI. PRAKASH .C,
             S/O SRI. CHIKKAHANUMAIAH,
             AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
             R/A SINGAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
             HUNSUR TALUK,
Digitally    MYSORE DISTRICT,
signed by                                                  ...RESPONDENT
SOWMYA D     (BY SRI. H.S. LOKAPAL RAO, ADVOCATE)
Location:         THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
High Court
of           SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.10.2017
Karnataka    PASSED BY THE XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
             C.C.NO.3928/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
             FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

                  THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
             DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2023:KHC:45420
                                      CRL.A No. 21 of 2018




                         JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant called out,

absent, even during the second call at 1.15 p.m.

Even on the last date of hearing also there was an

under taking to argue the matter and costs were also

imposed. But costs were also not paid and there is no

representation on behalf of appellant. Considering the

conduct of the appellant, this appeal stands dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS