The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal appeal filed 2192 days after an acquittal, citing non-prosecution and failure of counsel to argue maintainability despite repeated adjournments during the pandemic.
The criminal appeal and the application for condonation of delay were 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, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.740 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHAMY SUDHAKAR SHENOY S/O LATE BHAMYVAMAN SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MAVADURGA AGENCY, COLLEGE ROAD, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574211.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
2
NORTH CHELLENGI NEAR THIRUMALA TEMPLE MATTACHERRI COCHIN (KERALA).
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO.13-10-1279/1 ‘LAKSHMINARAYANA’ DHANVANTRINAGAR VITOBHA TEMPLE ROAD CAR STREET MANGALURU-575 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RACHAIAH, HIGH COURT GOVERNTMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING THAT THIS HON`BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 08.01.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.46/2013 ACQUITTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND THE ENTIRE CASE MAY BE ORDERED TO BE RE-INVESTIGATED BY A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM BY LOOKING INTO THE COMPLAINT OF THE APPELLANT SET FORTH HEREINABOVE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE CASE AND NECESSARY DIRECTIONS MAY BE ISSUED FOR REHEARING AND RE-TRIAL OF THE ENTIRE MATTER AFTER BRINGING INTO BOOKS THE PERSONS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE CONSPIRACY OF MURDERING SRI.MAHESH PRABHU AND PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THE CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal was filed on 03.07.2020. When the matter was listed on 09.07.2020, two weeks’ time was granted to remove office objections and also to satisfy the Court as to how this criminal appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Court was maintainable by a stranger to the proceeding. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 30.07.2020 and on the request of learned High Court Government Pleader, it was ordered to be re-listed on 06.08.2020. On 06.08.2020, the matter was called out twice. There was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, it was adjourned to 12.08.2020. On 12.08.2020, it was adjourned to 13.08.2020 and thereafter, it was listed on 20.08.2020. On 20.08.2020, learned High Court Government Pleader stated that he would place on record the relevant judgments of the Hon`ble Supreme Court on the aspect of maintainability of this appeal. Hence, the matter was ordered to be listed on 27.08.2020. On 27.08.2020, learned counsel for the
4
appellant sought a week’s time. Hence, it was ordered to be listed on 03.09.2020 i.e., today. Once again, appellant’s counsel is seeking time in the matter.
for non-prosecution.
5
Consequently, application filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal to an extent of 2192 days is
also dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 2192 days in filing a criminal appeal against a judgment of acquittal.
Whether the criminal appeal filed by a stranger to the proceeding is maintainable under Section 378 CrPC.
Whether to grant time to the appellant's counsel for arguing maintainability during the pandemic.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Bhamy Sudhakar Shenoy
State of Karnataka
Sri Nandakumar Prabu @ Nanda
B.V. Nagarathna
Ravi V. Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
