IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF' S}33P'I'EMBI§1I?{i4:'.Vf./iV(:)(uJ9_"« VA
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsT1cE"ARA:L:'
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nc,7o/20Qg%A'« . . "
B BEN 4. _ _
Ravindra Achary
(Since dead by Wife)
Veena, w/0.1ate
Ravindra Acha_1'y2__1, : ._ _
Now aged abOiii'i;V{.36 y:ears,""' =
R/a.Nagaraja..Ei€Lt9.d:é; Q " " '
Post i3ad1ibVud_1'i=,_ '
Nads:fi'§il1'a§e,V _
Udupi. Taiuk, " * .. ~
Udupi Duis'trict.._ " .. Appeliant
[By:.SriXVi§ivfié1r;Vaivihai- Péégary K, Adv.)
'D/'0;I M Sayed,
New aged about 44 years.
R/a.Si;m.dVer Nagar,
'Building No.1,
Roam No.413,
' Senapathi Bapth Road,
'Dadar (W), Mumbai-28. Respondent
r
‘)
This Criminal Appeal is filed U/S 378(40 of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated
20.2.2008 in CC No.4872/2005 passed by the III
Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Udupi.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for ordersf«this
day, the court made the following: 4- * ‘A » ”
The present appeal is by:’»._the1’~cenipiainantCiting
No.4872/2005 on the fiie7of.._theCdiearnedir’ICi’i0w.§AdVditional«it’
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Jpiu referred
to as ‘Trial Court” Cidfora The appellant —
complainant h,as._chai1enged the judgment
and carrier”offacdfiittal’»d_ated._’C2’OV;2.2008 in the said case
acquitting’~the’ Section 138 of N I Act.
2. ..Notice .of’this.”ap’peai issued to the respondent —
accused could notmbe served on her for want of correct
‘v’;I’h;ei.tefore, the case stands posted today for
the request of the learned counsel for the
pappeiivarit ~ complainant for issuing NEW against the
0′ frespondent ~ accused. Having regard to the nature of
C—-.f””-“N-v”””
K4.)
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the case
is taken for final disposal and the arguments ondidcrtierits
are heard.
3. On careful reading of the impugn4e–dVV’oifd..e1’lb
acquittal, it could be seen that ithej; Tifialt’
observed at para No.5 of the juddgrndent
the accused was in judicia1’V«_V’pcu.stody’ fthtig time of
.i of the legal” _ri;:_)tice.V consequent upon are
2—-u-/”5
t’
dishonour of the chequein the same was
not served. Vtodddlthe complainants
counsel with ”an-., as “the shop is sealed”.
When suchis the could not be held that the said
notice’ was ser”ved___onV the accused.
‘ ~ specific case of the complainant that after
H question came to be returned from the
l3anl:, he got a statutory notice dated 14.12.2004 issued
V’ * tothe tespondent «W accused calling upon her to pay the
amount under the said cheque within 15 days from the
‘______f”‘v’*”-s..—-‘-«—
I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal Aec0rdir1g1Vy,4_4d_d’t_1f1e
present appeal is dismissed as being devoid.’-df ~