T Jagannatha Shetty vs V Ashok Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2625 Kant

                                        -1-
                                               CRL.RP No. 382 of 2020




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                     BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 382 OF 2020
              BETWEEN:
              T JAGANNATHA SHETTY
              PROPRIETOR OF NEW KARAVALI
              AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
              DELUX BAR AND RESTAURANT
              OPP SAMPIGE THEATER
              MALLESHWARAM
              BANGALORE-560 003

              AND ALSO AT
              NO.84 SREE RAMA KRUPA
              NARAYANAPPA BLOCK
              R T NAGAR BANGALORE-560 032
                                                           ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. NAGANNA C N., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

              AND:
Digitally     V ASHOK KUMAR
signed by N
UMA           S/O U K VASUDEVA RAO
Location:     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
HIGH COURT    NISARGA AYURVEDIC
OF
KARNATAKA     NO.466/1 13TH CROSS,
              10TH MAIN WILSON GARDEN
              BANGALORE-560 027
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SRI. S. VENKATESH SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

                   THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
              401 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 TO SET ASIDE
              THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 13.06.2017, PASSED
              BY THE XIII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.32119/2014,
              AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2019 IN
                                  -2-
                                            CRL.RP No. 382 of 2020




CRL.A.NO.998/2017 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

1. Case called out in the post lunch session.

2. None appears.

3. Considering the non-compliance of office objections, even

though sufficient opportunity having been given to the

petitioner, it is appropriate to dismiss the petition for non-

compliance of office objections.

4. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HNM