Karnataka High Court
Manjegowda vs N K Rangaswamy on 30 November, 2015
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7778/2014
BETWEEN:
MANJEGOWDA
S/O BOREGOWDA
39 YEARS
DODDAHARAGANALU VILLAGE,
GANDASI HOBLI,
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 119. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADV.)
AND:
N.K.RANGASWAMY
S/O KRISNEGOWDA
MAJOR, NETTEKERE VILLAGE
DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. ...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ANNEXURE-D,
DATED 14.10.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA IN C.C.NO.48/11 ON AN
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND PERMIT THE
PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN
THE APPLICATION AND GET IT MARKED BY ALLOWING THE
APPLICATION.
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Respondent though served is not represented.
2. The petitioner is prosecuted in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation against him is, towards outstanding liability, he had issued a cheque for Rs.4 lakhs, which when presented by the complainant before his Banker could not be encashed on the ground of insufficient funds. Now it is the submission at the Bar that the matter is posted for judgment.
3. Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the complainant had received two blank cheques from the accused as a security for obtaining loan from the financial institution and the said cheques are misappropriated by him. After initiation of the present proceedings, he got initiated another proceedings under the N.I.Act in respect of another blank cheque in his possession through one A.H.Mallikarjuna. The petitioner has suitably -3- issued reply notice to the notice issued by said Mallikarjuna bringing forth the above facts. The petitioner, who intends to establish his defence, needs to produce the documents pertaining to the other case in C.C.No.137/2014 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna. The Trial Court without heeding to his request now has posted the matter for judgment. If this petition is not allowed, it will result in miscarriage of justice and the petition may be allowed, permitting him to produce his documents.
4. In the light of the above submission, though I do not appreciate the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing his application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the ends of justice would require that he shall be permitted to demonstrate his entire defence before the Trial Court. As per his contention, he has brought down all the facts in the reply notice issued to A.H.Mallikarjuna, complainant of C.C.No.137/2014.
In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order dated 14.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.48/2011 by the -4- Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna, is set aside.
The Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence and to produce the documents mentioned in his application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court and then dispose of the case in accordance with law. Without seeking further adjournment, the petitioner shall be present before the Trial Court with his documents and adduce his further evidence. The petitioner is permitted to get the case preponed with the permission of the Court to furnish the copy of this order to the concerned Court and also the respondent.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-