Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 52612 (KAR)

SRI. RAMDAS GOPALKRISHNA BHAT v. KANORIA INDUSTRIES LTD.

CRL.RP/100095/2020 · 2026-01-31

V Srishananda

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1277 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100095 OF 2020 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMDAS GOPALKRISHNA BHAT, AGE 55 YEARS, DEALERS IN CEMENT AND BUILDING MATERIALS, NOW WORKING AS PIGMY AGENT, 976, ASHRAM ROAD, KARWAR DISTRICT, KARWAR, M/S. VIJAYA TRADERS, ASHRAM ROAD, KARWAR. (NOTE. M/S. VIJAY TRADERS IS DE-REGISTERED ON 28.02.2013 HENCE NOW THE SAME IS NOT IN EXISTENCE. HENCE THIS PETITION IS FILED THROUGH THE PETITIONER) …PETITIONER (BY MISS BASAVARAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: KANORIA INDUSTRIES LTD., CEMENT DIVISION, BAGALKOTE-587111, BY ITS OFFICER-LEGAL A R NIDASESHI, AG MAJOR, OCCN. NOT KNOWN, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT AT BAGALKOT IN CC NO.386/2002 AND JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98/2012 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1277 CRL.RP No. 100095 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo reporting the death of the petitioner. 2. In view of the same, the revision petition stands dismissed as having abated. 3. The amount, if any, in deposit is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent, under due identification. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1