The High Court of Karnataka disposed of appeals against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The appellant failed to appear or file representation despite multiple adjournments and notices. The court dismissed the appeals solely for non-prosecution.
Both criminal appeals 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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1259 OF 2012 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2012
IN CRL.APPEAL NO.1259/2012:
BETWEEN:
A.P. MANJUNATHA GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S STAR ELECTRONICS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.60, 4TH CROSS, SSI AREA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. REPRESENTD BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.P. MANJUNATHA GUPTA. … APPELLANT [BY SRI.A.P.MANJUNATH GUPTHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON-(ABSENT)]
AND:
SMT. LATHA, W/O VARADARAJAN, MAJOR, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BOOM SYSTEMS, NO.41, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH STREET EXTENSION, NEAR CMS PRIMARY SCHOOL, GANDHIPURAM, COIMBATORE-12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. LATHA KARTHIKEYAN. … RESPONDENT [SRI. S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE]
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2012 PASSED BY XIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN C.C. NO.9830/2008-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
IN CRL.APPEAL NO.1258/2012:
BETWEEN:
M/S. STAR ELECTRONICS, NO.60, 4TH CROSS, SSI AREA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.P. MANJUNATHA GUPTA. … APPELLANT (BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.A.P.MANJUNATH GUPTA - ABSENT)
AND:
M/S. BOOM SYSTEMS, NO.41, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH STREET EXTENSION, NEAR CMS PRIMARY SCHOOL, GANDHIPURAM, COIMBATORE-12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. LATHA KARTHIKEYAN. … RESPONDENT
(SRI. S. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2012 PASSED BY XIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN C.C. NO.2863/2008-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;
3
JUDGMENT
In these appeals memo for retirement filed by the learned counsel for appellant was accepted and court notice was issued to the appellant on 05.01.2021. In both the appeals, the appellant/complainant is one and the same.
Inspite of service of court notice on 16.01.2021, appellant failed to appear before this court. Hence, on 10.11.2021, to give an opportunity to him, the appeals were adjourned to 18.11.2021. Even on the said date there was no representation for the appellant, hence, the appeals were adjourned to 25.11.2021. Since the appellant failed to appear and make any representation even on 25.11.2021, the appeals were adjourned to this day i.e., 30.11.2021.
Even today, there is no representation for the
appellant, though the case is called twice.
4
These appeals are against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, acquitting accused/respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeals.
Hence, both the appeals are dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
BH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC challenging acquittal in cheque dishonour case should be allowed despite non-prosecution by the appellant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. MANJUNATHA GUPTA
SMT. LATHA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
