Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6288 (KAR)

SRI SAYED JAMEEL v. SRI NAJIR BASHA

CRL.RP/100271/2024 · 2025-04-16

V Srishananda

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6530 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100271 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SAYED JAMEEL S/O. LATE SAYED GAFOOR SAB, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. LORRY OWNER, R/O. PLOT NO.17, 22ND WARD, B.J. ESETENTION, SHANTHINAGAR, SANKALAPURA, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. NAJIR BASHA S/O. LATE BASHASAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR OF KHAN ENTERPRISES MULTY TYRE DEALER, R/O. D.NO. 1226, KRISHNA NAGAR, 24TH WARD, BALLARI ROAD, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF 3RD ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5030/2023 AND ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE IN CC NO.141/2019 PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5030/2023 DATED 06.06.2024 AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE IN CC NO.141/2019, DATED 08.02.2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.19 10:32:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6530 CRL.RP No. 100271 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Case called. None present on behalf of the revision petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing, there is no representation for the revision petitioner. Despite granting sufficient time, counsel for revision petitioner failed to address the arguments. Taking note of the same, petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 56