Allowed

Smt. Dakshayini v. Smt Ningamma

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2021CRL.RP/239/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Sessions Court order dismissing appeal for non-prosecution in cheque bounce case. High Court set aside dismissal as criminal appeal cannot be decided without hearing and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition allowed; order of dismissal for non-prosecution in Crl.A.No.84/2019 set aside; matter remanded to First Appellate Court for fresh consideration within three months.

Smt. Dakshayini Vs Smt Ningamma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.239 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. DAKSHAYINI W/O. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.47/2, PENSION BLOCK, 1^ST CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY – 570 024.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND

¶11

SMT. NINGAMMA W/O. VENKATESH , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.4830/3, NEAR RAJENDRA CIRCLE, RAJENDRANAGARA, N.R. MOHALLA – 570 024.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI C.R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 AND 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MYSURU, IN C.C.NO.739/2015 .

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by challenging the order of dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution in Crl.A.No.84/2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’).

¶19

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

¶22

The complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and after the trial, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to

¶23

¶24

pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.84/2019 and the sentence was suspended by the learned Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’). The matter was posted for arguments on 03.02.2020. On the said date, the parties were present and the counsel for the accused was absent and the case was called out and dismissed for nonprosecution. Against the order of dismissal, the accusedpetitioner is before this Court.

¶25

After hearing both the counsel, it is well settled that the criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for nonprosecution and the opportunity required to be given to the accused to argue the matter on merits and the First Appellate Court required to re-appreciate the evidence on record by giving opportunity. But the First Appellate Court has committed error in dismissing the appeal for non-

¶26

¶27

prosecution. At this stage, learned counsel for both the parties submits that the matter can be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration.

¶28

Submission of both the counsel is taken on

¶29

record.

¶30

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the First Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal for nonprosecution on 03.02.2020 is required to be set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, criminal revision petition is

¶32

allowed .

¶33

The order of dismissal for non-prosecution in

¶34

Crl.A.No.84/2019 dated 03.02.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶35

The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration.

¶36

However, the petitioner counsel shall not take unnecessary adjournments.

¶37

¶38

The First Appellate Court shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶39

Send the trial Court record as well as the First

¶40

Appellate Court record to the First Appellate Court.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

GBB

Smt. Dakshayini v. Smt Ningamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dakshayini v. Smt Ningamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lokesh B R Vs State of Karnataka

Byralingappa Vs Anvaruddin

Bharath Kumar R. @ Bande @ Bharath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dr S R Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sudha R., Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Pradeep Banerjee Vs State of Karnataka