IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
M.S. Prakash S/o. Late P.Srinivas Aged about 48 years R/at No.57/1, Mamballi Gram, School Road, Yallandur Taluk, Chamarajanagar District – 571 441.
(Sri. M.S. Prakash, Appellant - Absent) AND:
1. Gururaj, S/o. P. Govindraj, Aged about 36 years R/at No.452/453, Sanmarga, Siddarthanagar, Mysuru – 570 011.
2. P. Devaraju, S/o. S. Potharaju Aged about 52 years …Appellant R/at No.230, Neethimarga, Siddartha Layout, Mysuru – 570 011.
3. T. Shekhar, S/o. Thimmegowda, Aged 40 years, R/at No.230, Neethimarga, Siddartha Layout, Mysuru – 570 011.
4. N. Chethan Kumar, S/o. S.C. Nataraju, Aged: 36 years R/at No.452/453, Sanmarga, Siddarthanagar, Mysuru – 570 011.
5. M.K. Mohan Kumar, S/o. P. Kantharaju, Aged: 27 years, R/at No.1594, E & F Block, Ramakrishnanagar, Mysuru – 570 011.
6. The State of Karnataka by Police of Devaraja Police Station Mysuru District – 570 011.
Represented by:
The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
…Respondents (By Sri.I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-6) **** This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated:20.11.2017 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.333/2015, acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 5/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 307, 324 and 341 r/w. 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Orders this day, K.N. PHANEENDRA, J., delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T As the learned counsel for the appellant retired from the case, the Court had issued Court notice to the appellant. The said notice was duly served as per the Police report. Thereafter also, the Court has granted time to the appellant to comply with the office objections. In spite of that, the appellant has not shown any interest to either appear before the Court or to comply with the office objections. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal. Three opportunities have already been granted. Therefore, no purpose would be served in adjourning the case for compliance of office objections, even in spite of absence of the appellant.
2. Hence, the appeal which is filed against the judgment of acquittal deserves to be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BMV*