VINOD Vs. B.S. PANNEERSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appear in the matter either physically or through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for the non- appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the confirmation of his conviction for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act , 1881.

(3.) A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, as long back as on 15/12/2018 itself, the learned counsels from both side had made a submission that the matter has been settled between the parties and that they have filed an application reporting settlement. Registry was directed to verify the application and to place the same for consideration. However, the registry vide its office note dtd. 30/7/2022, i.e. three and a half years after the order dtd. 15/12/2018, made its submission that no such application has been filed so far by the parties. Thereafter the matter was listed on 3/8/2022, on which day, there was no representation from the petitioner's side. Again on 15/9/2022 also, the learned counsels from both side had remained absent. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up today in three rounds, there was no representation from either side. It clearly goes to show that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.