IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1519 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
P. M. Moideen kunhi @ Moidu Kunhi, Son of Aged about 45 years, R/o. Padekallu house, Mithnadka, Karopady Village, Bantwala Taluk 574243.
... Appellant (By Sri Ambrish B. Advocate) And :
1. State of Karnataka Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Karnataka High Court Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Thasildar Bantwal Taluk, Bantwal Dakshina Kannada.
3. The Deputy Commissioner Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka-575001.
... respondents This criminal appeal is filed under section 449 of Cr.P.C by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the order dated 11.11.2016, and consequently quash the auction to be held on 18.08.2018 in respect of the schedule property which is in the name of the appellant.
This criminal appeal coming on for orders this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Called again.
2. None appear for the appellant.
3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that despite giving several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not complied the office objections. On 23.11.2018 as a last chance a week’s time was granted to the appellant to comply the office objections. Still he did not comply. Thereafter on 11.01.2019 after noticing that the learned counsel for the appellant was remained absent when the matter was taken for first round, this Court made the following observation when the matter was called in the second round :
“Called again in the afternoon. None appear in the matter.
Once again, as a last chance, a week’s time is granted, making it clear that non-compliance of the office objections in its entirety within a week from today may lead this Court passing appropriate order in this matter, including dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance.
List the matter immediately after one week from today.”
4. Despite the above, since the appellant has not complied the office objections nor even appeared and shown the reason, it has to be taken that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter by complying office objections. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/- JUDGE hnm