IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6589 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI.RAMESH HEGDE S/O MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PROPRIETOR HEGDE AUTO CENTRE P B ROAD DAVANAGERE-577513. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: RAVI G SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE) AND SRI R.N.AJIT KUMAR S/O SRI K G NAGENDRA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS NO.2935/6, 3RD CROSS MCC “A” BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577513. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: C N KAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE IN CR.A.NO.152/11 DATED:25.8.14 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL FOR HEARING THE SAME ON MERITS.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No.152/2011 dismissing the appeal.
2. Having suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by judgment dated 10.11.2011 in C.C.No.1194/2009 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. It was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.152/2011. The order-sheet reveals that, after hearing the parties, the matter was posted for judgment on 1.3.2012. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer suo motu posted the matter for further hearing. Since then, there have been irregular appearances of the counsel appearing the appellant. Even though the order-sheet reveals that at one stage, the parties were referred to mediation, mediation having failed, the matter was referred back to the court. But both the parties failed to appear before the court. From 07.06.2013 till 25.08.2014, the matter was being adjourned for arguments. Finally on 25.08.2014, noting the absence of the counsel for the appellant, appeal came to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier advocate representing the appellant (petitioner herein) before the court below having died, the court issued notice to the parties and thereafter the appellant engaged a new counsel who could not effectively represent the case of the appellant before the court. Further he submitted that on 25.08.2014, the counsel was present in the court, but was engaged in Lok Adalath matter and as such, his absence was unintentional.
4. From the reading of the grounds urged in the petition, it is noticed that the appellant (petitioner herein) had already addressed his arguments and the matter was set down for judgment. The records do not indicate as to why the court could not pronounce the judgment instead reopened the case suo motu. Under the said circumstances, learned Presiding Officer could have either disposed of the appeal or could have granted opportunity to the appellant (petitioner herein) to address the arguments, rather than dismissing the appeal. As the appellant has raised important grounds in support of his acquittal, the impugned order has occasioned miscarriage of justice.
In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No.152/2011 is set-aside. The appeal is restored to file. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court, without any further notice, on 10.06.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss