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.439 OF 2017 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.438 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Sri. Dinesh Baliga B, Aged about 63 years, S/o. Sri. B.M.Baliga, Residing at No.56/3, Borewell Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 066. ...Appellant (common in both appeals) (By Sri. B.N.Jayadeva, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. Arun Kumar Krishna, Major, Proprietor, M/s. Shivani Constructions, No.179, 6th Cross, 27th Main, HSR Layout, Sector N, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034.
2. Smt. Lisa Arun Kumar Krishna, Major, W/o. Sri. Arun Kumar, No.179, 6th Cross, 27th Main, HSR Layout, Sector N, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034. …Respondents (common in both appeals) Criminal Appeal No.439/2017 is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated:13.01.2017 passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.570/2010 – acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
Criminal Appeal No.438/2017 is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and sentence dated:13.01.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.569/2010 – acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
These Appeals coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present appeals have been filed by the appellant challenging the judgments of acquittal dated 13.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.Nos.570/2010 and 569/2010, respectively, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act” for the sake of brevity).
2. When the matters were called out, learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks’ time stating that the respondents are in Kerala. After going through the previous order sheet and noticing the fact that on few dates of hearing, there was no representation from the appellant’s side and learned counsel for the appellant remained absent in these matters and the opportunities like finally and last chance have already been exhausted, this Court suggested the learned counsel for the appellant as to why don’t a reasonable cost be imposed and time be granted. Despite the Court repeated the same suggestion several times, learned counsel merely insists for an adjournment without giving any valid reasons, which clearly go to show that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matters, except taking mere adjournment for no valid reasons.
3. In such a situation, I am constrained to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matters. Though generally, a criminal appeal would not be dismissed for non-prosecution, but these are not the appeals against conviction but these are the appeals against acquittal by the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Inspite of Court giving sufficient opportunities, since the appellant has not utilized the same in paying process to ensure service of notice on the respondents, I am constrained to hold that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matters.
Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC