Govind Ram Chanani vs Latha on 23 January, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 21]

Karnataka High Court

Govind Ram Chanani vs Latha on 23 January, 2009

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 1819 (KAR.), 2009 CRI. L. J. 2154, 2011 ACD 402 (KAR), 2009 (3) AIR KANT HCR 212, (2009) 80 ALLINDCAS 437 (KAR), (2010) 2 CURCC 26, 2009 (80) ALLINDCAS 437, 2009 ALL MR(CRI) 236, (2009) 1 SIM LC 170, (2009) 76 ALLINDCAS 728 (HP), (2009) 2 NIJ 42, (2009) 2 NIJ 235, (2009) 3 CIVILCOURTC 182, (2009) 3 KANT LJ 253, (2009) 4 BANKCAS 81, (2009) 3 ICC 706, (2009) 3 ALLCRILR 730, (2009) 2 BANKCLR 153

Bench: K.Ramanna

é ;x;:_»@i;  

 

IN THE HEGH comm 0;? KARNATAKA AT BAi%GA:§c§}?%E".'_"'_'T 4

mmn THZS THE 23% DAY.:OF;{ANi%¥AI§'Y;.'i?€?{§9v  V'

BEF<)R1é'-   ' '
THE HON'BLE MR;;3§3"21fIcE'K§eAM);rmA"'-~ 

CRIMINAL APPEAL N05.  C/.i.:;': «5.54/E005,
555/2905, 556/ 2005, ;s57x«2oo5; :;;58;<29o5, 559/2005 as
 .550-g2Q_Q§    *  %

BETWEEN:    

GOVINE} RAM ;c:}u;iN'AVN1v   , 
ALITH<:2RIs;';:D I{,£?:VP'£&vi;;f'.Er~:<{:»§ri&.IVE'<)F._' _
M/S ALLOY $'i'i:f;_E;;:;._, EM:>o_RiL;iM,"  
NO 36,.,;<:tI¢:_0'::.$  _   ' 
mm LAYQIJT, .;:4A':'§~:£1gE_R}:.A '
8ANGf--;}..C)E£E V    

 COMMGN
APFELLANT

(By Sri : féiiﬁéiis» avsr-.{1A:5 S';-;é;::«;H, ADV 3:

.A 1 1. ms;-:A "*~--.

" T. Wm" -13*: £_O§jARAJ as
 ._ . P:2<3~;=_: rays LATA MULTITECIH EN'{'Ef%Pi2i$ES
" R;<:>=:s:_::>.r--43, 35 GROSS,
 R,;s;;;s,ﬁNAGAR

QBLQGK,
;.~:z.gs.NGAL..oRE

  BEG-JARAJL5

'A REG NO 43, 35 CROSS.
F3AJRJINAG§¥.R COMMON
2 £3.IJ{§{:-'?}{' BANC':ALQRE  RESPONDENTS

{By Sri: A N E'ADHﬁsE{R'ISE§NA, RSV 3 hi THESE APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 378(4) GR.P.C. PPAYING TS SET ASEDE THE ORDERS UT. 3-2-<35 PASSED BY 'I.'Hk?.. 18_j"FH ACEMM, BANGALORE, EN :30 N(3s.i?9538/99, :29:--33.g~;>9, a2£~>1:;39;99, 28960/99, 29540/99, 29:3'?;99, 2325-;rs<s.';g,.r..9i9« _.__&a. 29539/99 AND PERMIT TO AMEND THE CZAIJSE 'I'1T1*i;E1 8e;_L'3§§€£'i,C3'E' THE TRIAL COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE TREAL_._' ' . '~ THESE APPEALS HAVING BE:;i{:mH'EAs2:: a2~a;:~. 1=<§:s_ER:vE::

FOR ORDERS, COMENG ON FOR PR'©Nc§U:s4CEMEmf":'1»%i;$~...ma;2:, THE COURT DELEVERED THE FK)LLGWiNG;

J U!) ' AH tlxcse :' --~HGr;2)ViIl€i Ram Chan ani stated to ﬁgprgsgntaﬁvg of Mis.A3lc>y Bangalarc under Section oriiczr dated 8-2-2005 passmzi 203' ASCJ, Baxzgaicre in z:":.C°Nes;;§_9533/9§9,:.Li,'a ?'29._§':33*]99, 29139/99, 28960/99, 295g:<};;99, 2a1_i37{'99;-2é§61/99 as 29539/99 aﬂowing LA. ' . V. - 1f§.ié'3ii{33j}T""{§Z1i§' zjcspoxiiiéiifsf accuses? in the respective cases and €?r3nVseqi§t:§1t'f;?'V[a<'§«:;11ittcd 'mt: mspsndcnts.

2.. 'ézase (sf the appellant is that appcﬂant--(}ov;ind Ram described himsclf as a p1'Oi3I'.i€13€)1', M/sﬁiioy Emporium issued legal notice ta respondents caiiing ' ﬁipan them is make good the cheque axnount issmici by them !LqN:7'" 2,?

..¢'-?''"'.'! and the same is a rcsuit crf mistakﬁ. The said" M in, owing to improper cemmunicatigzif if«thc;sai_.d.. _ii121_~A'a1{é:isL"~3 rcctiﬁcd, the same will in no way hr p'I=:*:j:11~:iVi¢..:€:S, tI?1€iV "

respondents. One of the another partner: is his rig: féazft,' Goxrindaxanl Chanani is whoic and "The? 'Thcrcfm't:

he sought of application to correct the; hag! Staci Emporium ztprescziytﬁd V Ti;u§.. h-'main objcctad the said appiicatioi1'*--ﬁ!}€dV on various grounds and had a1s«:)»..f_;i1<éti?..app1itfz*.ﬁ di'1 tﬁxdcr Section 258 Cr.P.C in all the {faﬁﬂé dismiss tbs: complain" ts, contending that the maintainablc in the city: of law and the V VV _ comgtzviainantvkannot be allowed to oomcct his mistake at the Jbc:}atcd.. and cannot allow any third party to enter in the casﬁ. H6I;lCi'3, it is prayed to dismiss the VA coimpiamt.

4. Afftr hearing both sides and considering the matcriais placed before it, trial (lourt disnlissed the E3 partner nor a pm-;;2rietor of the ﬁrm -- M] Emporium and therefore ha C3'{1;€i[()'?.--.

complaints under Section 200 C1'. T'1"iC1c:

not pmduecd any dmrumcnt t{3,§§i;s:_;w ha "

91' proprietor of the .Thc:wfpfo3;§é;v.C«t;:;;'t 1.3€:i<';w_ha§§ rightiy dismissed the appﬁcatviibr: u $cck'1'ng for sensation and «.1.1'fs1¢V:r::..&V'.{:v{3;;t1}31ai11tss. an is fmther crept in the v%§sVsuch in Cr.P.C. to 133::

an --a;§i:<:r a lapse of 5 or 6 years.

Initiaﬂy, wen: dismissed for non proscgruiign, Vlicwévér, V" this Sour: ailewctd the cﬁmina}. V ai'pp€:éI};'3 setting aside the orclar of dismissal. ﬁled belated applicatlena which am not The avermcnts of the compiajnts and Vin;:moré.m:i;i1n¥z of appeal are cenfrary to each other. V' Caurt balow is ﬁght in dismissing the complaints .« acquitting the rssgrenéents in all the casucs. It £3 further contended that though the mgpondants have wrongly ﬂied application under Section 2538 (2r.P.C for dismissal caf to respondents on behalf of M] S Alloy Steel Empozium. The mattriajs placed 01:1 rszcord ixxdicaiiiﬁ "fhat on_ demand noﬁcr: was issucei by Ciizcinaxii * proprietor of the Alloy Staci a partner nor pmpxtictor of A]§e3'*~ ii A cap}: of the rtgistiatien Registrar of Secicties disckJ$c$:'th:'at ' R§§:j_ Anandi Devi Saraogi Were; one Ajay Kama: the said ﬁrm but he rctired éielctcd. The Govind Ram Chcnani Jproprjctor ktnowing fully well _ that ﬁilcsy Eﬁxporium is a paxﬁzcrship firm but

1.§é:tae1":'VLfil-3£§"L?:3'§3*g(;:)ii{§,f21§'on for correction of nirccrd to drsscztibﬁ the as a partzlcrship ﬁrm after a lapse:

' _ of E::'»":;vr A , dtzring which few more procecciings had 14139;: in all the cases, which amaunts is ﬁifiing th: thb co1np]a3'11a1:n:'s case. M] s.A11oy Stcci Empmtéum VA hciizg a pmmemhip ﬁzm, the appcﬁam: cannot be permitted ~ to ﬁle complaizzts in his individual capacity or as a managtr of the said ﬁrm Without them: bring any specific Wzittsn M/5; Alloy Steel Empoﬂum to ﬂit: camplaixxts. M in cast: 0fVISI~!WA MYITER ---vs- o.1é--*.P<3I:»aA'R {Ai§z"119é4."% SC- V 1] it is hcld thus;

" If any spcCi3} 3tatueV'p;'cs<;1'ibe§~--:éﬁ'c1ices and makes any _ provizticéii " fox; takiug cognizance Qf suclzy--afféncés? undér~¥31f:Xstatutc, than the camfilain-3nt_réq:1:Si;ing the magistrate to take L_<_::vVi:"~. :1;eu;:j+::ren.::e must satisfy the eligibility by the Stattlfﬁf I ..

Further, sccﬁoﬁ .,;~I.J.,2x:+: g~ccgﬁi}~cs that; ﬁikc cogmzan' cc of any Tvoffzéixee ﬁiidcr Section 138 except _ :,1poi1".a«v..<;c3mp1ai'n1_; made in Wxitézxg by the payee. & Thu-.-3. th;a':ivét;«;éw;y1:re1nents are that; ' Ia}. should be made in [in contradistinction from an oral I ::_0mp1éii11--i--}-;~a31d

--.[b} The czxamplaixiam; shémld be the payee hokicr in due (.'.O1}.I'S€=, where the payee ermziorsed the cheque in favour of some one ' 2:136].

AA I{}}"' ".l'hus, in the present cast, thc only aljgibiiity pxtsczibed by Section 142 of NJ Act is that the <:~r;;£np}ai31t must be by the payee or the holder in due course, " Vbut this ctritcxtia i3 uni satisﬁed as the complaizxt is not by thﬁ payee or by the hoidcr in due co1.::r$c or by their authorised ,,_:;;,«~ appcﬂant, conscqucnﬂy acquitmd the rcsp9ndcnts'V.fér:'_"t3;_1e oﬁ'cnce$ aﬁzgcd against them in all the cases. I 1. ';¥'he:rcforc, on the peculiar facts and '~ . «. VV of the case, thaw is no irregularity or acquittal passed by the Ccaurt aPP€als amdismisscd. " " ..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court