Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr P Bharath Kumar vs M/S Sharon Systems on 28 June, 2019

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1390/2018
Between:

Mr.P.Bharath Kumar
Aged about 42 years
S/o P.K.S.Rao
Residing at #197, Club Avenue Road
LRDE Layout, Karthik Nagar
Bengaluru-560 037.                       ... Appellant
(By Sri. P.S.Channe Gowda, Advocate)

And:

1.     M/s Sharon Systems
       Proprietor:Mr.JoshuaMartyn
       60/4, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar
       Chennai - 600 083.
2.     Mr.Joshua Martyn,
       Proprietor: M/s Sharon Systems,
       S/o Samuel Martyn,
       Flat No.AF3, Vinoth Viruksha
       Apartments, Near Thai Moogambigai
       College, Ganga Amman Street
       Nolambur,Chennai - 600 107. ... Respondents


      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order and judgment dated
11.04.2018 passed by the XIV A.C.M.M., Mayohall,
Bengaluru in C.C.No.60703/2017- acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offence P/U/S 138 on N.I Act.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
                              2



                        ORDER

There is no representation for the appellant. Even on 04.02.2019, 27.02.2019 and 03.04.2019 there was no representation for the appellant. Again on 25.06.2019, there was no representation for the appellant. On that day, this appeal was adjourned to this day as a last chance granting time to the appellant to comply with office objections. However, office objections are not complied with, as on today.

This is an appeal filed by the complainant- appellant against the judgment of acquittal passed against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

It is obvious that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE SSD/HB