IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.659 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
B.N.Shivanna, S/o late Nagappa, Aged about 56 years, R/at No.648, 5th Main, 12th Cross, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. .. Appellant ( By Sri N.Suresha, Advocate ) AND:
Karthiek Y.R.
S/o Raghavendra, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.42, 11th Cross, 10th Main, ITI Layout, 60 ft. Road, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Papareddy Palya, Bengaluru – 560 072. .. Respondent This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 6.5.2015, passed by the 23rd ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.24576/2010, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
ORDER Called again in the second round.
2. None appear in the matter.
3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2015, after this Court ordering for issuance of notice on 30.3.2016, the appellant who had to take fresh steps for service of notice upon the respondent by furnishing fresh process fee and correct address of the respondent has not done the needful till date.
4. When the matter was taken up on 20.8.2018, there was no representation from the appellant side. Subsequently, the matter came up on 20.9.2018. Then also, neither the appellant nor his counsel are present. Thereafter, on 13.11.2018, the matter came up before the Court. By observing that none appeared in the matter, once again this Court, as a last chance, granted a week’s time to do the needful. Despite which, the appellant has not taken fresh steps to ensure service of notice upon the respondent.
5. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 5.12.2018, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, three weeks time was granted as finally to do the needful. Despite the same, the appellant has not done the needful. Thus, the above chronological events go to show that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting this matter.
6. Though normally a criminal appeal would not be dismissed for non-prosecution, but the present appeal is not against the judgment of conviction, but, it is against the judgment of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The appellant being the complainant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/