This criminal appeal by an appellant against an order of acquittal was dismissed. The court noted the appellant's absence, lack of compliance with previous orders, and lack of interest in prosecuting, leading to dismissal.
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.
CRL.A.No.1435/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1435/2018
BETWEEN :
MR. JAGADISH S/O MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT MUTHUKADAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.V.KODANDA RAM, ADVOCATE)
AND :
MR. GIRIGOWDA A.M. S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE SHIVARAPATNA POST MALUR TALUK – 563 101 ... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LVVI ADDITIONAL C.M.M. BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.56908/2016 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1435/2018
2
JUDGMENT
None appears for the appellant. This appeal is against the order of acquittal. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, needful is not done. The peremptory order dated 17.02.2021 is not complied. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
pgg
Mr. Jagadish S/o Mallaiah
Mr. Girigowda A.M.
Justice K.S.Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
