The appeal, filed by the complainant, was dismissed because his counsel was absent and the court found the appellant seemingly uninterested in pursuing it.
The criminal appeal was dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 of 2006
DATE: 16.11.2011
Between:
V.Malla Reddy …… Appellant And Mohd. Ali Khan @ Iqbal and another
…..Respondent
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA
GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 of 2006
JUDGMENT :
The appellant’s counsel is absent today also in spite of listing the matter under the caption of ‘for dismissal’. There is no representation. This appeal is filed by the complainant against reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court finding the 1st respondent/accused not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ultimately. It appears that the appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal.
2) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
November 16, 2011 ksh
V. Malla Reddy
Mohd. Ali Khan @ Iqbal
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
