PRAKASHCHANDRA SHETTY Vs. B.N.RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.

(2.) In the morning hours, the respondent's counsel remained absent. Therefore, the Court passed over the matter. In spite of calling the case twice, the respondent's counsel remained absent. Therefore, the following order is passed: 2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the XX ACMM, Bangalore in CC No.24770/10 dated 21.04.2014 in dismissing the complaint of the appellant for non-prosecution.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, 1981. After service of summons, the accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. On various occasions, the accused has remained absent and the Court has magnanimously entertained the exemption application as far as warranting recalling application and thereafter the plea was recorded and the case was posted for exemption of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1 on 12.09.2011 and thereafter on many occasions accused himself sought for time and he remained absent for many number of occasions and in that context, the cross-examination of PW1 was postponed on many occasions. It is mainly due to absence of the accused and sought time by the counsel for the accused the matter went on for cross-examination of PW1.