SRI SUBHAS SHETTY v. SAHYADRI MULTIPURPOSE ARECANUT
CRL.RP/637/2020 · 2025-01-13
H P Sandesh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24428 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24428 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1160 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.637 OF 2020 BETWEEN:
SRI SUBHAS SHETTY S/O SUNDAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 11TH CROSS, SOPPUGUDDE THIRTHAHALLI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201 …PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND:
SAHYADRI MULTIPURPOSE ARECANUT GROWERS SALES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., THIRTHAHALLI - 577432 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2020 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.37/2018 PASSED BY THE
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1160 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2020
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
The counsel for the petitioner is absent and the counsel for the respondent is present.
2. This matter was listed before the Court on 06.01.2025 and on that date, the counsel for the petitioner was absent. The counsel for the respondent though submits that the petitioner has not complied the
order of this Court dated 20.01.2024, sought a week’s time to verify the same. Today, the counsel for the respondent submits that the order of this Court dated 20.01.2024 is not yet complied by the petitioner. Hence, it appears that the counsel for the petitioner is not pursuing the matter diligently. This petition is of the year 2020
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1160 CRL.RP No. 637 of 2020
filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Though the sentence was suspended subject to payment of 50% of the fine amount, same has not been complied and not pursuing the matter diligently by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SN