IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.222 OF 2021(C)

BETWEEN:

RAKESH @ RAKI S/O RAJAN, AGED 33 YEARS OCC: SELF EMPLOYEE R/O OPP: RMC, ELI ROAD SAGAR, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT PIN-577401 (NOW IN JC, DHARWAD CENTRAL PRISON, DHARWAD)

….APPELLANT

(BY SRI. N.R. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

…. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)

*****

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.03.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN S.C.NO.10028/2016-CONVICTED THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 AND 115 R/W 149 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The office has raised objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal.

With regard to the above office objection, Sri.N.R. Krishnappa, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant (Accused No.4) and other accused have already challenged the very same impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 30.03.2017 in SC No.10028/2016 passed by the Court of V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar, before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.806/2017 and the same is pending for consideration and that the appellant has not informed him about the filing of earlier criminal appeal. He further submits that due to inadvertence, the present appeal has been filed and therefore, he prays for permission of this Court to withdraw the present appeal, as the same is not maintainable. The learned counsel has also filed a memo to that effect.

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the office objection is upheld. The memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant for withdrawal of the appeal is allowed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

KGR*