Bangalore District Court
C.V. Pandurangaiah Shetty vs N.S. Lakshmipathaiah Shetty on 2 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITYF CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 2nd day of April 2016
PRESENT:
Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., LL.B (Spl),
M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),
LL.M (Business Laws), M.Phil-in-Law
(Juridical Science)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Crl. Appeal No. 448/2013
Appellant : C.V. Pandurangaiah Shetty,
Original-Accused S/o. Late Rangaiah Setty,
Proprietor,
M/s. Rooplee Enterprises,
No.19, 17th Cross, Suraksha Comfort,
Near Agrasena Hospital,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
(By Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent : N.S. Lakshmipathaiah Shetty,
Original-Complainant S/o. Late Suryanarayana Shetty,
Aged about 70 years,
R/a. Opp. BDA Park,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
(By Sri V.B. Shivakumar, Advocate)
* * * *
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/original-accused against the respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374(3) of 2 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in it's CC No.15749/2009, dated 30.07.2013.
2. The original-accused before the trial court having preferred the instant appeal against the original-complainant, as the appellant and the respondent, respectively, are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the trial court i.e., the appellant as the accused and the respondent as the complainant in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confoundation and perplexity.
3. This is a criminal case at CC No.15749/2009 arising-out of the PCR No.7565/2009 filed by the complainant against the accused before the trial court seeking for taking cognizance for the offences committed by the accused U/Secs.138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and punish him in accordance with law by imposing cost, penalty and charges together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. The epitomized facts projected from the complaint before the trial court run thus:
The accused being the Proprietor of M/s. Roopalee Enterprises, approached the complainant in the month of December 2008 and raised a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- voluntarily agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per 3 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 annum, thereon. The accused issued two cheques worth of Rs.1,25,000/-, dated 14.02.2009 and another cheque worth of Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 16.02.2009, both drawn on Cosmos Co- operative Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, towards the dischargence of the said loan, to the complainant and on presenting the said cheques by the complainant at the request of the accused, they came to be dishonored with the bank- endorsements as 'funds insufficient' and therefore, the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused, as against which the accused has given an evasive reply without paying the due loan- amount to the complainant and thereby, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Secs.138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. After lodging the complaint, the trial court has taken the cognizance in exercise of the powers conferred-upon it U/Secs.190(a) & (c) of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
6. After recording the sworn-statement of the complainant, the process U/Sec.204 of Cr.P.C. having been issued, the accused has put-in his appearance before the trial court in response to the summons issued against him, through his learned counsel.
7. On moving for bail, the accused has been released on bail. 4 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013
8. The trial court has framed the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the same was read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular best known to him.
9. The accused has denied the same and pleaded not guilty and further claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the complainant himself has got examined as P.W.1 and also further got examined two independent-witnesses as PWs.2 & 3 by name Jarappa and M.N. Guruprasad, respectively, and thereby, the complainant/P.W.1 himself has placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.10.
11. After the complainant's evidence was closed, since the incriminating circumstances were arising-out of the evidence of the complainant's side witnesses, the statements of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.
12. Per contra, to rebut the case and the evidence of the complainant, the accused himself has got examined as DW.1 and thereby, placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.D.1 to D.8.
13. The trial court, having heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the complainant as-well-as the learned counsel for the accused, basing on the material available 5 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 on record from the complainant, the trial court has framed the points for it's consideration as under:
(1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all shadow of doubt that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
(2) What order?
14. The trial court has given the findings on the points for consideration raised by it, as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
-------- and thereby convicted the accused by sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.2,30,000/- and in default of payment of the same, simple-imprisonment for six-months and out of the said fine- amount, the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,25,000/-, the cheque- amount as compensation and the balance-amount of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be defrayed to the State for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
15. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant/original-accused before the trial court, has preferred the instant appeal against the respondent/original- complainant before the trial court, on the following:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
(a) The judgment and order under the appeal is illegal, arbitrary and the same is passed without considering 6 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case properly.
(b) It is not clear that the complainant neither stated in the evidence nor stated in his complaint actually on which day or date that he had advanced Rs.2,25,000/- to the accused or the accused on what day or date took Rs.2,25,000/- from the complainant/P.W.1.
(c) It is the case of the P.W.1 that the accused approached the complainant for hand-loan of Rs.2,25,000/- and P.W.1 advanced the said amount and further the accused has agreed to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum. In the chief-examination further the P.W.1 denies that he has advanced the said amount in December 2008. On the contrary, the P.W.1 says or admits that (i) he paid Rs.1,25,000/- to the accused on 14.02.2009 and (ii) Rs.1,00,000/- on 14.06.2009.
Hence, so-far-as letting/advancing Rs.2,25,000/- to the appellant, there is a material contradiction.
(d) It is the specific case of the respondent that, he lent-out amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the month of December 2008, for which the accused to discharge the loan- amount issued two cheques (i) one for Rs.1,25,000/- dated 14.02.2009 and another (ii) for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 16.02.2009. Both cheques were drawn on Cosmos Co-operative Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the complainant presented the said cheques as per Exs.P.1 & P.2 to the bank and issued a notice and filed a case before the XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in CC No.15749/2009. It is submitted that, earlier the very same complainant-N.S. Lakshmipathaiah Setty, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Setty 7 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 had filed a case in CC No.13926/2008 against the accused-appellant before the same Court of XVI ACMM, Bengaluru, in which the appellant found guilty.
(e) The said case i.e., CC No.13926/2008 which was filed before the XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, was pending before the court during December 2008 for evidence. So, admittedly, the appellant and the respondent i.e., the complainant and the accused were in strained relationship or they were in bitter feelings. Such being the factual-position, in this case i.e., CC No.15749/2009 before the same court again it is alleged that the very same complainant advanced Rs.2,25,000/- to the accused. This is highly doubtful and improbable.
(f) The accused as Proprietor of M/s. Roopali Enterprises and for the necessity of the same, according to the P.W.1, the accused borrowed the amount. On the contrary, as per Ex.D.5 after 25.07.2007 through an agreement, he has handed-over business to his son and stopped attending office. Hence, the question of accused asking Rs.2,25,000/- towards his business is highly doubtful.
(g) The trial court has lost it's sight to consider that, according to Ex.D.5, the accused-appellant has entered- into an agreement with his son D.P.Dinesh, and he retired from the business and transferred his rights in favour of his son.
(h) The trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence/material on record in it's right prospective manner.
(i) The trial court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, two cheques bearing No.837554, dated 14.02.2009, for 8 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 Rs.1,25,000/- and cheque bearing 610615, dated 16.02.2009, for Rs.1,00,000/- being held by the complainant as holder in due course, called-upon the Partners of the said Partnership Firm by way of a legal notice dated 23.02.2009 through his learned counsel for making the payment/discharging the liability under the dishonored cheques for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, in respect of which the said notice is confronted to the complainant/P.W.1 and marked as Ex.D.1 and such being the case, the complainant having issued a notice as per Ex.D.1, it creates the doubt as to how the same complainant once-again issued only legal notice to the accused under Ex.P.5 demanding the drawer of the cheques to pay the amount covered under the alleged Exs.P.1 & P.2.
(j) The trial court has lost it's sight to consider that, the cause of action fixed through Sri D.P.Arun and D.P.Dinesh as per Ex.D.1; and the cause of action against the instant accused - C.V.Pandurangaiah Shetty as per Ex.P.5, both cannot be reconciled with each- other.
(k) The trial court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, the complainant has not established regarding his source of income and capability of advancing the alleged huge-amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as the loan to the accused, in respect of which the P.W.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that, he had no source of income in the year 2008.
(l) The accused has established the cheques as per Exs.P.1 & P.2 in question are not drawn by the instant accused to discharge the alleged cheque.
9 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal.
16. Per contra, the respondent-complainant has not filed any counter-objections to the present appeal-memo.
17. I have heard both the learned counsels for the appellant- accused as-well-as the respondent-complainant.
18. Basing on the material available on record and grounds of appeal, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the trial court has justified in affirming the Point No.1 raised for it's consideration holding that, the complainant has established that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts?
(2) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court is arbitrary, baseless, capricious, devoid of merits, erroneous, frivolous and perverse without being on the sound principles of law and warrants for the interference by the instant court?
(3) Whether the instant case deserves to be remanded-back to the trial court for leading the defence-evidence by the accused afresh by standing in the witness-box and thereafter hearing on merits from both the sides by the trial court, to dispose-of the case afresh on 10 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 merits, in view of the citation relied-upon by the learned counsel for the accused, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1402 (C) in a case between M/s. Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh B. Thakore?
(4) To what order?
19. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Affirmative partly.
Point No.3 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.4 .. As per the final order, for
the following:
REASONS
20. The status and ranking assigned in the trial court to the complainant and accused are being adopted and adhered-to in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confoundation and perplexity.
21. Point No's.1 to 3:- To avoid the reiteration of the material available in hand and to appreciate the evidence adduced before the trial court, in a better position, I hereby take-up these Point No's.1 to 3 together admixingly for discussion.
22. It is the specific contention of the complainant by way of his complaint that, the accused being the Proprietor of M/s. Roopalee Enterprises, approached the complainant in the month of December 2008 and raised a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- voluntarily agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per 11 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 annum, thereon. The accused issued two cheques worth of Rs.1,25,000/-, dated 14.02.2009 and another cheque worth of Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 16.02.2009, both drawn on Cosmos Co- operative Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, towards the dischargence of the said loan, to the complainant and on presenting the said cheques by the complainant at the request of the accused, they came to be dishonored with the bank- endorsements as 'funds insufficient' and therefore, the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused, as against which the accused has given an evasive reply without paying the due loan- amount to the complainant.
23. To substantiate his contentions, the complainant himself has got examined as P.W.1 and also further got examined two independent-witnesses as PWs.2 & 3 by name Jarappa and M.N. Guruprasad, respectively, and thereby, the complainant/P.W.1 himself has placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.10, in which Exs.P.1 & P.2 are the original-cheques, Exs.P.1(a) & P.2(a) are the signatures of the accused, Exs.P.3 & P.4 are the bank-endorsements, Ex.P.5 is the copy of legal notice issued against the accused on 09.03.2009, Exs.P.6 & P.7 are the postal-receipts, Ex.P.8 is the unserved postal-cover, Ex.P.9 is the reply notice and Ex.P.10 is the original-complaint. 12 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013
24. Denying the entire case of the complainant, it is the specific defence of the accused that, he knowing the complainant since last 5 years, he use to visit oftenly since 2004 till the end of 2006 and in the month of January 2006, he borrowed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant to meet his financial urgencies with respect to his business and thereafter, he repaid the total amount of Rs.1,85,000/- to the complainant by way of installments. Despite the same, the complainant had filed a complaint before the trial court in CC No.13926/2008 and after recording the evidence on both the sides and hearing the arguments on merits, the judgment came to be pronounced on 19.05.2010 directing him (instant accused) to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, which amount was already deposited by him. Therefore, the complainant and himself (accused) being not in good terms in respect of CC No.13926/2008, the complainant threatened him (accused) that he would take the revenge against him. He has not issued any cheque dated 21.04.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and he is not liable for any alleged amount allegedly to be paid to the complainant. He has transferred all his rights in respect of M/s. Roopali Enterprises to his son - D.P.Dinesh through the agreement dated 25.07.2007 and since-then he has stopped running the said business and also attending the office, whereas, his son - 13 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 D.P.Dinesh is running the said business from 25.07.2007 and therefore, the question of asking or raising the loan of Rs.2,25,000/- by him (accused) from the complainant and also issuance of the said cheques towards the dischargence of the alleged loan, does-not arise at-all. But, the complainant has taken the blank-cheques from his (accused) office without his knowledge and he never knew about the missing of the said cheques till he received the legal notice from the complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal.
25. Per contra, to rebut the case and the evidence of the complainant, the accused himself has got examined as DW.1 and thereby, placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.D.1 to D.8, in which Ex.D.1 is the copy of legal notice dated 23.02.2009, Ex.D.2 is the postal-cover, Ex.D.3 is the copy of legal notice dated 07.03.2009, Ex.D.4 is the postal-cover, Ex.D.5 is the agreement dated 25.07.2007, Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.13926/2008, Ex.D.7 is the letter dated 13.07.2010 issued by Cosmos Bank and Ex.D.8 is the letter dated 21.06.2010 issued to Canara Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru.
26. On marshalling the rival-contentions of both the sides, along-with their respective oral as-well-as the documentary- evidence, it is crystal clear that, the criminal case at CC 14 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 No.15749/2009 is arising-out of the PCR No.7565/2009 was filed by the complainant against the accused before the trial court seeking for taking cognizance for the offences committed by the accused U/Secs.138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and punish him in accordance with law by imposing cost, penalty and charges together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
27. At the very outset, it is significant to note at this point of juncture itself that, the learned counsel for the accused has pressed-into service with all the vehemence at his command that very recently he having appeared and representing for the accused- appellant, in the trial court some other advocate was representing the said accused and while adducing the defence-evidence of the accused, the chief-examination testimonial affidavit has been presented by the accused as DW.1 and adduced the defence- evidence; but, the accused cannot be permitted to adduce the defence-evidence by way of filing the sworn-testimonial-affidavit, alike the complainant, as it is not permitted U/Sec.145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882.
28. In respect of the same, the learned counsel for the accused has placed his reliance-on a well-settled principle of precedent law, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1402 (C) in a case between 15 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 M/s. Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh B. Thakore, which reads thus:
"(C) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 141(1) - Evidence on affidavit by complainant or his witness - Omission by legislature to incorporate word "accused", with word "complainant" in S.145(1) - Said word "accused"
cannot be incorporated in S.145(1) by High Court
- Further drawing analogy between evidence of complainant and accused in case of dishonoured cheque - Was not proper - Accused cannot be allowed to tender his evidence on affidavit. Interpretation of Statutes - Incorporating words by Court.
If the legislature in their wisdom did-not think 'it proper to incorporate a word 'accused' with the word 'complainant' in S.145(1) ..... it was not open to the High Court to fill-up the self-perceived blank. Secondly, the drawing an analogy between the evidences of the complainant and the accused in a case of dishonoured cheque was not proper. The case of the complainant in a complaint under section.138 of the Act would be based largely on documentary-evidence. The accused, on the other hand, in a large number of cases may not lead any evidence at-all and let the prosecution stand or fall on it's own evidence. In case the defence does lead any evidence, the nature of it's evidence may not be necessarily documentary; in all likelihood the defence would lead other kinds of evidences to rebut the presumption that the issuance of the cheque was not in the discharge of any debt or liability. This is the basic difference between the nature of the complainant's evidence and the evidence of the accused in a case of dishonoured cheque. It is, therefore, wrong to equate the defence-evidence with the complainant's evidence and to extend the same option to the accused as well. (Paras 31, 32) Therefore, it cannot be said that on a request made by the accused, the Magistrate may allow him to tender his evidence on affidavit. (Para 36) Cases Referred : Chronological Paras 2006 AIR SCW 6446 : 2007 CLC 3 (Ref.) 21, 34 16 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 2005 AIR SCW 287 : AIR 2005 SC 648 (Ref.) 21 2001 AIR SCW 3353 : AIR 2001 SC 3303 (Ref.) 21 2001 AIR SCW 3928 : AIR 2001 SC 3955 : 2001 Cri.L.J. 4656 (Disting.) 23, 25 1991 AIR SCW 2754 : AIR 1992 SC 96 : 1992 All LJ 258 (Ref.) 33 AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990 Cri LJ 562 (Ref.) 29 (1980) 1 All ER 529 35 "
29. On meticulous perusal of this particular well-settled principle of precedent law, it is crystal clear that, it is improper on the part of the court to consider the evidence of the accused as a defence and a rebuttable-evidence by way of a sworn-testimonial- affidavit which is absolutely contrary to the provisions of Sections 141(1) & 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and therefore, the accused cannot be allowed to tender his evidence on affidavit as there is no scope for the same in favour of the accused U/Secs.141(1) & 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alike the complainant has the scope.
30. Admittedly, in the instant case in hand, the accused has adduced his defence-evidence by way of sworn-testimonial-affidavit in the year 2010 itself. The trial court has entertained the same to decide the case on merits in the year 2013. It appears that, none has brought to the notice of the trial court with respect to the status of law regarding the sanctity to the evidence of the accused by way of a sworn-testimonial-affidavit, before itself. 17 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013
31. It is no doubt, the accused himself has filed the sworn- testimonial-affidavit as his defence-evidence and now before the instant appellate court, his learned counsel has pointed-out the same as the legal-latch to entertain the same. It is significant to note that, when once it comes to the notice of the court of law regarding the settled principle of law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India barring the accused to tender his defence- evidence by way of sworn-testimonial-affidavit, more-specifically, by virtue of the afore-culled-out well-settled principle of law, then the instant court cannot step-into the wrong-path to proceed further on merits to discuss and dispose-of the appeal, whereas, it would be appropriate within the frame-work of law that if the entire defence-evidence of the accused is set-aside and remanded- back the case to the trial court to provide an opportunity to the accused to tender his defence-evidence by standing in the witness- box and thereafter cross-examine him by the complainant's side, and then after hearing both the sides on merits afresh, dispose-of the matter once-again afresh on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the instant discussion or by the earlier judgment of the trial court itself, I feel it will be a justification at this point of juncture, under the peculiar circumstances prevailing herein, as the said settled principle of law relied-upon by the learned counsel for the accused has binding 18 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 nature on the instant court under Article 121 of the Indian Constitution.
32. To put-into simple terms, to avoid the conflict between the observations if made right-now on merits which may be adverse with the observations and discussions to be made by the trial court after remanding the instant case to it for fresh disposal as observed herein before supra, this court has not stepped-in to discuss on the merits of the case rather the instant court has absolutely ventured-in to dispose-of the instant case and remand- back to the trial court only basing on the afore-culled-out settled principle of law, to avoid any unwarranted legal-complications in furtherance.
33. With these observations, I am inclined to answer the Point No.1 in the 'Negative', Point No.2 in the 'Affirmative partly' and Point No.3 in the 'Affirmative'.
34. Point No.4:- For the reasons discussed at much-length herein before supra, while answering the Point No.1 in the Negative, Point No.2 in the Affirmative partly and Point No.3 in the Affirmative, I am inclined to proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/original- accused against the respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374(3) of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in CC 19 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 No.15749/2009, dated 30.07.2013, is hereby allowed partly and remanded the case to the trial court with the following directions/observations:
(1) The defence-evidence tendered by the accused by way of his sworn-testimonial-affidavit having been set-aside, the trial court shall provide an opportunity afresh to the accused to adduce his defence-evidence orally in the witness-box and thereafter the opportunity to the complainant's side to cross-
examine the accused and then it shall re-hear both the sides on merits and dispose-of the case afresh on merits without being influenced by it's earlier judgment in CC No.15749/2009 and also any of the observations made herein before supra as discussed. (2) Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the trial court on the very next date of hearing to be fixed by the trial court by way of issuing the court notices to them and co-operate with the trial court to dispose-of the matter, as-early-as-possible. Send the entire LCRs to the trial court, along-with the copy of this judgment immediately, without causing any delay. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 2nd day of April, 2016) (G.D.Mahavarkar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
20 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013(Judgment pronounced in the open court. Operative portion of the same is extracted as under) ORDER This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/original-accused against the respondent/original-
complainant U/Sec.374(3) of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in CC No.15749/2009, dated 30.07.2013, is hereby allowed partly and remanded the case to the trial court with the following directions/observations: (1) The defence-evidence tendered by the accused by way of his sworn-testimonial-affidavit having been set-aside, the trial court shall provide an opportunity afresh to the accused to adduce his defence- evidence orally in the witness-box and thereafter the opportunity to the complainant's side to cross-examine the accused and then it shall re-hear both the sides on merits and dispose- of the case afresh on merits without being influenced by it's earlier judgment in CC No.15749/2009 and also any of the observations made herein before supra as discussed. (2) Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the trial court on the very next date of hearing to be fixed by the trial court by way of issuing the court notices to them and co-operate with the trial court to dispose-of the matter, as-early-as- possible. Send the entire LCRs to the trial court, along-with the copy of this 21 Crl.Appeal No.448/2013 judgment immediately, without causing any delay. LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.