In Criminal Revision Petition No.1123 of 2012, the Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the dismissal of a criminal appeal for default. The court held that the petitioner's counsel remained absent and the petitioner failed to act after the appellate court repeatedly directed compliance, warranting no interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1123 of 2012
BETWEEN:
Smt. B.N. Sumithra, No.26, Dwaraka Nagar, Hosakerehalli, B.S.K. 3rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085. …PETITIONER
(By Shri. S. Karaveeraiah, Advocate [absent]) AND:
M/s. Vidya Seva Credit Co-operative Society Limited, No.2929, B.S.K. 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 070, By .est. CEO. …RESPONDENT *****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order of dismiss by appellant court in Criminal Appeal No.790 of 2011 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has consistently
remained absent. The office objections have not been complied
with.
for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’,
for brevity). The petitioner having been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.65,000/-, out of the said amount, Rs.60,000/- was to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation. That having been challenged in appeal, the present petitioner did not take steps after the court had directed notice to the respondent, over several months. The matter was listed before the appellate court on more than a dozen occasions for the purpose of compliance and finally, the court,
3
left with no alternative, has dismissed the appeal for default. It
is that which is under challenge in the present petition.
before this court, would reflect the conduct adopted by the appellant before the appellate court. There is no warrant for interference. The petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this court should interfere to set aside the dismissal of the appellant's appeal for default due to delayed compliance with directions after service of notice.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. B.N. Sumithra
M/s. Vidya Seva Credit Co-operative Society Limited
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
