Remanded

Syed Atheek Ahamed v. Smt. Nagamma

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1192/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition, set aside the High Court order dismissing the criminal appeal for default, and restored the appeal to the file of the District and Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law after finding the appellant denied a reasonable opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the appeal is set aside, the appeal is restored to the Sessions Judge's file for disposal, and the parties are directed to appear on 01.02.2022.

Syed Atheek Ahamed Vs Smt. Nagamma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1192 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Syed Atheek Ahamed, S/o Syed Ahamed, Aged about 37 years, R/at No.1287/23, Yadgar Mohalla, Channapatna Town, Pin-571501.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri A.N.Radha Krishna, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. Nagamma, W/o Ravikumar, Aged about 47 years, R/o Jettigara Beedhi, Kote, Channapatna Town, Ramanagara Town, Pin-571511.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(Respondent - served)

¶13

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna in C.C.No.552/2015, dated 29.11.2019, convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and etc.,

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel

¶18

for the petitioner at the time of admission. Respondent is served with notice, but there is no representation on her behalf.

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2021 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram, dismissing his appeal, Crl.A.No.15/2020. It was an appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the Magistrate in C.C.No.552/2015 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.2,05,000/-.

¶20

The petitioner has produced the order sheet of the proceedings in the appeal, which

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

shows that on 24.03.2021, a submission was made

¶23

by the Advocates for the parties that there was a likelihood of compromise and therefore the case was adjourned to 29.03.2021. On 29.03.2021, counsel for the appellant made a submission that his client had taken back the brief from him along with NOC and therefore the case was again called at 1.40pm. At that time the appellant was not present in the Court hall and therefore the appeal came to be dismissed for non prosecution.

¶24

Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready for compromising the matter with the respondent and in fact he was ready in the appellate Court itself. That apart, if the

¶26

proceeding before the Sessions Court is seen, it appears that the appellate Court hastened to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution.

¶27

:: 4 ::

¶28

5. When a submission was made in the

¶29

early hours on 29.03.2021 that the appellant had taken back the file from the counsel, the matter could have been adjourned to enable the appellant to engage another Advocate. In this view, I am of the opinion that the appellant has been denied of a reasonable opportunity of putting forth his case. Therefore, I do not find that the order of dismissing the appeal for default can be sustained. Hence the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Revision Petition is allowed.

¶32

The order dated 29.03.2021, passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram, dismissing the appeal in Crl.A.No.15/2020 is set-aside.

¶33

The said criminal appeal is restored to the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram. The appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

¶34

:: 5 ::

¶35

The appellant and the respondent shall appear before the appellate Court on 01.02.2022.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Kmv/-

Syed Atheek Ahamed v. Smt. Nagamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Atheek Ahamed v. Smt. Nagamma

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 Amit Mavi Vs State of Karnataka

Ali Ashpak @ Asfak Hanif Thara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abrar Kazi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yamuna Vs the State

Sri Vijaya Vs the State

Puttamallaiah Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police