IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.53 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Sri. B.R.Suresh Babu, S/o Late B.M.Ramanatha Shetty, Aged about 57 years, Residing at No.15/1, SVM Mansion, East Circle Road, V.V.Puram, Bengaluru – 560 004. …Appellant (By Sri. S.Vemareddy, Advocate) AND:
1. M/s. Best Constructions, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. Raghu Shankar, No.5/A, 1st Floor, Balaji Building, 10th Cross, Dr. Jeevaraj Alva Road, RMV Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru-560 080.
2. Mr. Raghu Shankar, Aged about 40 years, Managing Partner of M/s. Best Constructions, No.5/A, 1st Floor, Balaji Building, 10th Cross, Dr. Jeevaraj Alva Road, RMV Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru-560 080. …Respondents This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order passed by the XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.1405/2008 - 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 made the following:
ORDER Called again in the third round. None appear in the matter.
2. The present appeal is of the year 2015. A perusal of the previous dates of order sheet go to show that after filing of this appeal, to comply the office objections, the appellant has taken sufficient time. After granting sufficient time to the appellant, on 4.2.2016, this Court made an observation that, as a last chance to comply with the office objections, time was extended up to 29.2.2016, making it clear that, in case of non-compliance, the appeal would be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, on 4.3.2016, the office objections came to be overruled.
3. On 31.3.2016, at request, the matter was ordered to be listed in the next week. Thereafter, the matter was listed only on 3.9.2018 and the learned counsel for the appellant remained absent. From then onwards, on subsequent hearing dates i.e., on 13.12.2017, 12.1.2018, 15.2.2018, 23.2.2018, 1.6.2018, 2.7.2018, 19.7.2018, 9.8.2018 and 23.11.2018, continuously the learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent.
4. Thereafter, the matter was once again listed on 30.11.2018, when also the learned counsel for the appellant remained absent. However, this Court ordered for issuance of notice upon the respondent on the said day. Inspite of ordering notice to the respondent, the appellant has not taken steps to issue notice to the respondent. As such, listing of the matter continued on 2.1.2019, 4.1.2019, 14.1.2019 and on 17.1.2019. On all these dates also, learned counsel for the appellant remained absent. Thus, on 17.1.2019, this Court made the following observation :
“ None appear in the matter.
Inspite of granting time as a last chance for furnishing process fee and copy of the appeal memo to issue notice to the respondent, the appellant has not taken steps in this appeal of the year 2015.
However, considering to grant one more opportunity as an ultimate opportunity, two days time is granted.
If process fee is not paid, list this matter on 22.01.2019.”
In the light of the above, when the matter is listed and called today, there is no representation from the appellant side. Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. As such, though generally a criminal appeal would not be dismissed for non-prosecution, but, it is not a case of appeal against judgment of conviction, but, it is an appeal filed by the complainant challenging the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. As observed above, inspite of granting sufficient adjournments and opportunities, the learned counsel for the appellant has constantly remained absent and appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter. As such, it is a fit case which can be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Consequently, the pending IA’s does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/-