IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1201 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
M/s. Sri.Rajarajeshwari (Merchant) Finance, Rep. by its Manager H.S.Paramesh, Aged 41 years, No.754, First Floor, Swarnamba Complex, Anjana Nagara, Magadi Main Road, Vishwaneedam Post, Bengaluru-560091. ...Appellant (By Sri. Iyengar S.Varadarajan, Advocate) AND:
Om Prakash Tiwari Son of Deepashankar Tiwari, No.19-F, First Main Road, IIIrd Block, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bengaluru-560079. ...Respondent This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and order dated:22.04.2016 passed by the XXVII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.15815/2015 – acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
This Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again in the afternoon Session. Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
2. A perusal of the order sheet go to show that in this appeal of the year 2016, inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not furnished PF., copy of the appeal memo and copy of the interlocutory application to issue notice to the respondent 3. The order sheet reveals that after ordering for issuance of notice, when the matter was posted on 22.10.2018, there was no representation from the appellant’s side, as such, as finally a week’s time was granted.
On 13.11.2018, when the matter was again called, once again there was no representation from the appellant’s side, as such, as a last chance, a week’s time was granted to do the needful.
Thereafter, on 02.01.2019, again the matter was listed, on which date also there was no representation from the appellant’s side. Once again as finally a week’s time was granted. Thereafter, instead of one week, after nearly four weeks when the matter was listed today, there was no representation from the appellant’s side.
4. In the circumstances, it can be inferred that the appellant is not at all interested in prosecuting the matter, as such, not furnished the process fee, copy of appeal memo etc., to ensure service of notice upon the respondent.
5. Generally a criminal appeal would not be dismissed for non prosecution or for not taking steps. However, the present appeal is not against the judgment of conviction, but it is against the judgment of acquittal of the present respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Inspite of the above, since it is clear that the appellant is not evincing any interest in taking steps to ensure service of notice upon the respondent, the appeal stands dismissed for not taking steps.
Sd/- JUDGE GH