High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a party-in-person who repeatedly sought further time to engage counsel without filing necessary applications to proceed pro se.
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 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI ARUN KUMAR B.R. S/O. LATE B.R.RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. AKSHAYA INTERNATIONAL R/AT NO.1, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS, PATTEGARAPALYA, BENGALURU-560072. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR B.R., ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C.])
AND:
SRI BHARATH KUMAR S/O. S.MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.88, 2ND MAIN, DATTATREYA NAGARA, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU-560085. ...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.680/2018 DATED 08.06.2020 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED XII ACMM, BENGALURU DATED 19.03.2018 IN C.C.NO.7370/2014
2
AND FURTHER ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This matter was listed on 21.02.2022. On that day, the petitioner was physically present and learned counsel for the petitioner on record was permitted to retire from the case and petitioner was granted a week’s time to engage the services of another counsel of his choice and ordered to list this matter on 28.02.2022.
3
Today also, again the petitioner party-in-person seeks time. Inspite of sufficient opportunity being given to the petitioner to engage the services of another counsel, the petitioner has not engaged the counsel and has also not filed any application in the office seeking permission to proceed with the case as party-inperson. Hence, there are no grounds to adjourn the matter again.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.Nos.1/2021 and 2/2021 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Arun Kumar B.R.
Sri Bharath Kumar
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
