IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.878 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
Sri. Jayakumar, S/o. Sri. M. Madegowda, Aged about 42 years, Now R/a Market Beedi Srirangapatna Town, Mandya Dist.
(By Mr. D. Prabhakar, Advocate) AND:
Sri. B.P. Ramegowda, S/o. Sri. Puttegowda, Aged about 50 years Film Producer, A.C. Office Road, Pandavapura town Mandya Dist.
(By Mr. P. Chandrashekar, for Smt. Vijetha R. Naik, Advocate) …Appellant …Respondent This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated: 08.06.2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna in C.C.No.52/2005, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
Learned counsel for the respondent alone is present.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2010, since several dates of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent. When the matter was taken up on 18.06.2018, 09.08.2018, 16.11.2018, 12.02.2019, 13.02.2019 and on 14.02.2019, the learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent.
3. The present appeal is one among the old appeals pending before this bench. Inspite of granting sufficient time, the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
4. Even though generally a criminal appeal would not be dismissed for non-prosecution, but it is a criminal appeal not against the judgment of conviction filed by the accused, but it is against the judgment of acquittal filed by the complainant challenging the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. Since the above finding would go to show that since for several dates of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution.
BMV* Sd/- JUDGE