Smt R. Saroja vs Sri Ningaiah on 8 September, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt R. Saroja vs Sri Ningaiah on 8 September, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010___

BEFORE

Tm: HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH 7   E *

CRIMINAL PETITION N_fQ,45os;'2o'1o'.';V.    

BETWEEN :

Smt.R.Saroja w/o late Dandapan3'_,_
Aged about 43 y ears.  
Occ: 'B' Group Employee of BSNL,'._ 
No.G/8/13, P & T Quartets,  =  .
Kaval Byrasandra ' ._  _  
8angaIore«560 032. S -     *,,.PETITIONER
(By Sri.Sharns Ahmed Patiietn, Adv.)   .. 

Sri. Ningaiah /o::_Yt;,V_P. Kfishn"aVppe;,'  
Aged about.,3_1"yeaI's:;;;_     
R/at Yayfehalli" 'J Vil121gei.& post, _

Kutagi ho_bli.. 'Rani-aiiagar ta1Li'i<:. '

Bangalore' «rural d'i.strict._ .. ' .. RESPONDENT

V.  'tinder Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to

 set aside tizae drdpr dated 24.8.10 passed by the 14mAdc11. CMM,
V}3§El1'ig&:'1i'CiTt§V,"»":.iiTi ..c_C".~{3.No.29-476/07 the order rejecting the

app}iAca--t}io1.1v 'E'.i;--].V'(;'9C1v:,"';IVi'ld€I' Section 91 of Cr.P.C. r/W 66 of Indian

 _Evideiice Afct angcij application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

it " vi»'1.'hisE"Cr1.I3. coming on for admission this day, the Court

 :n'adVe*th'e foll0Wing:--



O R D E R

Petitioner has called in question the order" dated 24.8.2010 passed in C.C.No.29476/07 on the file of.t'heW.14*?* Addl.C.M.l\/1.. Mayo Hall, Bangalore.

2. Petitionenaccused filed 91 of Cr.P.C. r/W Section 68 of Indian application under Section 3'ilV1'v"-ppf direction to the eomplainant__;'_l:to:'\furnish Hrlocurnents mentioned in the schecluie..l:l" _ it

3. Complainant for an offence punishable alleging that. the Cheque the petitioner has been dishonoured.

4. Petpitiioner complainant to produce the mone;-;r§l'encling l1e_ense as his capacity to lend the loan and to V thefofllence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. He also-l'__sough'tVp_loif'recalling PW-1 for further erosswexamination. ' _ Trial!cou'1't-ieonsidering the material, found that. for the ' pl"p1_A;;fpose"oi; proving the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. the opllcolrnplainant is required to prove the ingredients of the said provisions and there is no need to summon the document such it as money lending license. Further, it also found that PW-I was éﬂa crossexaminecl by the accused and there is no reason arisen as to why again he should be cross--examined.

5. The documents sought to be summoned are absolutely irrelevam for the purpose of proving the offence un(ier 138 of the N.I.Act. If any thing is there, it is for prove in his defence. As far as the _compIair;a"1it""is'_fCo'ncemed.u he has to prove the offence with all the iiigredie:iis'Vre"qui1+.e:d under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

6. in the light of the S6lII1(3,.'H'I:VVﬁI:"ld'..I_'1O grouiitis interfere. Srl.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court