The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition for non-prosecution and failure by the petitioner to comply with court objections and pay imposed costs despite multiple opportunities.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance; cost of Rs. 1,000 treated as arrears of land revenue.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.522 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
KESHAVAMURTHY ASHOK S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT GURREDDY BUILDING, DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, MARGONDANAHALLI, ANANDAPURA, J.C.PALYA, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-36.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.NAGARAJA.N., ADV. - ABSENT)
AND
SRI. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN S/O DHARMACHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT DHARMACHAND, SUSHILKUMAR JAIN, PAWN BROKER, R.M.NAGAR, BANGALORE-16. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.D.S.MALIPATIL, ADV.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed u/S.397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 08.11.2016 in C.C.No.51245/2013 on the file of the XIV A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bangalore and order dated 01.02.2019
Crl.R.P.No.522/2019
2
passed in Crl.A.No.25065/2016 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-21) Bangalore.
This Crl.R.P. coming on for Orders, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner is neither present physically nor through video conferencing.
A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that inspite of granting several and sufficient opportunities of not less than five times, the petitioner has neither complied the office objections nor shown any reasons for non-compliance of office objections. On 04.04.2022, even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court had granted one week's time for compliance of office objections, however, imposing a cost of `1,000/- payable at the Registry. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has neither paid the cost nor complied the office objections nor even shown the reasons for non-compliance of office objections. Hence, the revision petition stands dismissed for non-
Crl.R.P.No.522/2019
3
compliance of office objections as well as for non-
prosecution.
The cost of `1,000/- imposed by this Court on 04.04.2022 be treated as arrears of land revenue and Registry to take steps to recover the same in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
KNM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution and failure to comply with office objections despite repeated opportunities.
Whether the imposed court cost for non-compliance should be treated as arrears of land revenue for recovery.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
KESHAVAMURTHY ASHOK
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
