Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5486 (KAR)

SMT. SHOBHA DEVENDRAPPA ARALIKATTI v. CHANDRASHEKHAR BASAPPA PUJAR

CRL.RP/100053/2021 · 2026-02-26

V Srishananda

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1164 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100053 OF 2021 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SHOBHA DEVENDRAPPA ARALIKATTI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HESCOM EMPLOYEE, P. B. ROAD, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE)-ABSENT AND: CHANDRASHEKHAR BASAPPA PUJAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE BUSINESS, R/O. VIKAS NAGAR, DHARWAD-580004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.125/2019 DATED 01/02/2021 WHICH REJECTED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE SENTENCE AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.42/2019 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD DATED 21/08/2019, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED AND SENTENCING HER TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,12,000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT SHE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.138 OF THE NI ACT AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT. AND REMAND BACK THE MATTER BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD AND RESTORE C.C.NO.42/2019 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.01.31 11:21:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1164 CRL.RP No. 100053 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Case called out. None appears for the revision petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing, there was no representation. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the adjournment. Taking note of the fact revision petitioner has suffered an order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is not proceeding with the matter, revision petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37