M/S Sree Gokulam Chits And Finance Co(P) ... vs Sri Natarajan on 29 October, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 11]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Sree Gokulam Chits And Finance Co(P) ... vs Sri Natarajan on 29 October, 2014

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                               1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014

                           BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.342 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

M/s. Sree Gokulam Chits and
Finance Company (Private) Limited,
Having its registered Corporate Office at:
"Sree Gokulam Towers",
No.66, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai - 600 024.

And having branch office at:
Rear Block, 1st Floor,
Punjab Mansion, No.23,
Ebrahim Sahib Street,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 003.
Represented by its Managing and
GPA Holder: Sri. Saji M.C.
                                      ...APPELLANT

(By Shri. H.K.Singh, Advocate [absent] )

AND:

Sri. Natarajan,
                              2




Son of P. Govinda Swamy,
Aged about 64 years,
M/s. Manikantan Stores,
No.104/3, R.S.Palaya,
Banasawadi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 033.
                                  ...RESPONDENT
                            *****
      This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the order of the learned Fast
Track-III, Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore dated 17.11.2011 in
Crl.A.No.25135/2010 and confirm the order dated 01.10.201,
passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and 24th
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit,
Bangalore in C.C.No.30974/2006, convict the respondent
adequately for offences punishable under Section 138 of
N.I.Act.

      This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:


                       JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant remains absent. The appellant was the complainant before the Trial Court alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court having convicted the respondent, the respondent had preferred an 3 appeal and the appeal having reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.

It is now reported that the respondent is no more and hence, the appeal abates.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of as having abated.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court