Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC to set aside a judgment of acquittal. The Court noted the absence of the appellant's advocate and non-compliance despite adjournments. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.193 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Karan Kumar H., Son of Huchaiah, Presently residing at No.572, 17th Main, BSK 1st Stage, 1st Block, Bangalore – 560 050.
…APPELLANT
(By Shri Sathyanarayana Gopal Rao, Advocate [absent]) AND:
Mamatha K., Wife of Srinivas V., Residing at No.876, Anugraha Nilaya, 2nd Phase, 3rd Main, Hosakerehalli, Bangalore – 560 085.
…RESPONDENT *****
2
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in the Criminal Appeal No.270/2014 dated 13.11.2014 and passed by 5th Fast Track Judge and conviction passed by the 18th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.18661/2009 – 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 delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
None appears for the appellant.
It is noticed that in spite of several adjournments, there is
non-compliance. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for nonprosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC filed without an advocate in attendance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karan Kumar H.
Mamatha K.
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
