- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3229 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100049 OF 2023 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHRI SRISHAIL S/O. DUNDAPPA KANKANAWADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YADAWAD, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218. … PETITIONER (BY SRI YASH R. NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SHEKHAR S/O. RADHA UTTUR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, NOW R/O. KUBAAD HOSPITAL, SIDDARAMESHWAR COLONY, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) READ WITH SECTION 401(1) OF CR.P.C 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAGALKOTE SITTING AT JAMKHANDI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5042/2021 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25.10.2021 IN C.C.NO.06/2019 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-MUDHOL FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, 1881. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.02.19 14:38:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3229 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment/order dated 21.12.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi in Crl.A.no.5042/2021 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2021 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol in C.C.no.6/2019, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Yash Nadakarni, learned counsel for petitioner - accused submitted that on complaint filed by respondent – complainant that petitioner and respondent were known to each other, petitioner had sought financial assistance to tune of Rs.6,50,000/- from complainant in month of January 2017 assuring to repay same within one month and after receiving it, he had failed to repay within stipulated time and on 17.03.2017, issued cheque no.080808 for sum of Rs.6,50,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Yadwad Branch, Yadwad. And when presented said cheque returned dishonored with endorsement “fund insufficient”, on 28.04.2017. Thereafter - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3229 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2023 through legal notice was got issued on 03.05.2017 demanding payment within fifteen days, same was neither replied nor amount repaid even after receipt. It was submitted after petitioner appeared before trial Court and set up valid defence, trial Court had proceeded to pass judgment of conviction on 25.10.2021 and passed order of sentence directing him to pay Rs.6,50,000/- to complainant and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved Crl.A.no.5042/2021 was filed before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote sitting at Jamkhandi, but under impugned order appeal was dismissed for non prosecution for non-appearance. 3. Relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhananjay Rai Alias Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2022 SC 3346, it was submitted, criminal appeal when admitted for final hearing has to be decided on merits and order of dismissal of appeal for non prosecution would be unsustainable. On above short ground sought for setting aside of impugned order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3229 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2023 4. Sri K.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondent on other hand sought to oppose petition. 5. Heard learned counsel. 6. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is: ‘Whether impugned judgment and order passed by First Appellate Court and trial Court call for interference by this Court? 7. Order impugned in this revision petition i.e., order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Appellate Court reads as follows: “Appellant and counsel absent. No representation. On perusal of ordersheet it reveals that since 19.03.2022 till today there has been no representation for appellant. Arguments also not addressed in spite of providing sufficient opportunity. No grounds to grant further adjournment. Consequently appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.” 8. Thus it is clear that appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3229 CRL.RP No. 100049 of 2023 Court in case of Dhananjay Rai’s case (supra), an order dismissing appeal for non prosecution would not be tenable. In view of same and on said short ground, order impugned would require to be set aside. Hence, point for consideration is answered in affirmative insofar as impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Appellate Court would require to be set aside. Hence, following: ORDER 1. Revision petition is allowed in part, impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed in Crl.A.no.5042/2021 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi is set aside. Consequently Crl.Appeal no.5042/2021 is restored to file. 2. Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before Appellate Court on 24.03.2024 without awaiting any fresh notice. 3. Thereafter Appellate Court is directed to decide appeal on merits as early as possible within an outer limit of six months. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM/ CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23