Abdul Hameed vs Smt. Ramlath
2024 Latest Caselaw 4988 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Abdul Hameed vs Smt. Ramlath on 19 February, 2024

                                       -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:6866
                                                CRL.A No. 255 of 2015




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                 DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                    BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2015 (A)


             BETWEEN:

             ABDUL HAMEED,
             AGED 40 YEARS,
             S/O H. MOHAMMED,
             RESIDENT OF B-401,
             KASA GRANDE, ATTAVARA,
             MANGALORE,
             DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT- 571 249.
                                                         ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. SRIHARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR
             SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
             AND:

             SMT. RAMLATH,
             AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
             WIFE OF ABDUL SAMAD,
Digitally    RESIDING NEAR K.K. STEEL HOUSE,
signed by    MAHAKALI PADPU, JIPPU,
SUMITHRA R
             MANGALORE- 571 249.
Location:
HIGH COURT                                          ...RESPONDENT
OF           (RESPONDENT SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
KARNATAKA
                  THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
             ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED BY THE
             JMFC-V COURT, MANGALORE, DK, IN C.C.NO.1742/12 -
             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:
                                      -2-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:6866
                                                  CRL.A No. 255 of 2015




                                  JUDGMENT

Sri Sriharsha, learned counsel representing

Sri Sachin.B.S, learned counsel for the appellant is present.

2. The respondent though served, remained absent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo for

withdrawal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Perused the records.

6. The appellant/complainant is challenging the

judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.1742/2012 dated

31.10.2014 in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

7. Now, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant

filed a memo for withdrawal. Hence, in view of the memo, the

appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

SD/-

JUDGE

SSB