IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2017 Between:
Sri. H.L.Nagegowda, S/o Lakke Gowda, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.76, Nikh Nilaya, Behind Chinmaya School, HSR II Sector, Somasandarapalya, Bengaluru – 560 021. ... Appellant (By Sri.Shivaprasad K.B., Advocate - Absent) And:
Sri.Herur J.S., S/o Siddappa, Aged about 38 years, Police Constable No.428, No.418, 2nd Floor, 35th Block, HUDCO Quarters, KSRP Quarters, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034. And also at: Commandant Office, 4th Battalion, KSRP, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034.
And Also at:
Hiresinganagutti Village, Hiresinganagutti Post, Hunagunda Taluk, Bengaluru. ... Respondent This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.383/2015 – acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence P/U/S 138 of N.I. Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT There is no representation for the appellant though the case is called twice.
2. The office objections are not complied with. The order sheet discloses that this case was listed on 11.07.2018, 27.08.2018, 27.09.2018, 14.11.2018, 28.01.2019, 28.02.2019 and 27.03.2019 for compliance of office objections. Even though time was granted finally on 14.11.2018, 28.02.2019 and 27.03.2019 to comply with the office objections, the office objections are not complied as on today. On 27.03.2019, two weeks’ time was granted finally, observing specifically that, ‘failing which, appeal shall stand dismissed’. However, the office objections are not complied.
3. This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, thereby acquitting the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. There is no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-