- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5847 CRL.A No. 65 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRI C LAKSHMIPATHI S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.34, CHIKKANNA BUILDING SANJAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 094 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.M. RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) AND: SRI V BHASKAR S/O SRI. C. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.2/14 POOJARI LAYOUT GEDDALAHALLI BANGALORE- 560 094 …RESPONDENT RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.10.2014, PASSED BY THE 18TH ACMM, BANGALORE CITY, IN C.C.NO.14321/2007 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5847 CRL.A No. 65 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. There is no representation on the appellant side. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant was also absent on 18.12.2023, 16.01.2024 and 08.02.2024. 3. This Court on 08.02.2024 has passed the following order. Sri. K. M. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant are absent. Respondent, though served, is absent. Due to the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, matter could not be proceeded. This Court vide order dated 16.01.2024, inspite of absence of learned counsel for the appellant, granted time and the matter is listed today. However, today also there is no representation for the appellant. One more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the appellant to address his argument, failing which, further orders will follow. List the matter next week finally” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5847 CRL.A No. 65 of 2015 4. The appeal is of the year 2015. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for the appellant is not present to argue this matter. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this matter. 5. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48