IN THE HIGH COURT OF 17;§[12NATAKA AT BANGALCJRE
DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF JUNE 2099
BEFORE V .
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.A3.Z)i'V"
cmmgat. ?E'!'l'I'lOIi uo.5313(g@.V A "
BETWEEN:
PRAVINCHANDRA V GANDHI
S/O VAUJIVAN KHUSAHAL QANDHL
"AMALFF, 14, L.D.RUPAREL MARG, ,_ V _
MUMBAI ~ 400 005. " PE'FPE'IC)NER
(By Sri.ARVIND KAMATH ~ Amfr
AND:
M/S KLEN AND MARMAMAS-v1\§LAN:.,¥1§'AC*:*{IVRERS
85 EXPORTERS LTD';-,-- :1, _ ~ A
No.496, 9%'; 3R?:J'--M'AI,N~,
RAJMAHAL VILAS :3'.2f<TENs:0;§;~~.___ . '
BANGALORE 030;} .. RESPONDENT
(By 4
Sri.KIRA.I~§ s JAV:\§.I, ADVS;
FIV{V.E'i')"'UV/8.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
.'I'1}§:"1'«:«.PE*r1'I'Iom:R__PRAY:NG THAT THIS HONBLE'. comm' MAY BE
PLE'..ASE*D_'FQ Q1 J'AS'i%.THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE C.C.NO.1'?45]06 AS
ACiAil'€SI' '1"H.I:~3.VPE'IfiT§'ONER ON THE FILE OF' THE 19TH ABEL. C.M.M,
V mncfmokm;
COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
1. mum mpg THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has cailcd in question the pmceedings in
No. 1745/2006 on the file of 195″ Add1.C.M.M., Bangalore.
subm.itt:e& that, neither he has put the signature to the cheque
nor he is incharge of the business or 1esponsib1e’¢vwfe:1*._<»_ti;!;e
transacfion alleged by the complainant. It is .
that, the petitioner is totally immobilized is not hfiesitioné K "
to move and in the circumstances. even if é:Qi1Ateixf.s"
complaint is considered, it does not .3_:_;1ake a *
under Section138 of N.I.Act as t }_§jctitioner is
concemed and 'is egefinst the
Company. Unless the petiticmer is
incharge and respQnei"h1§:– foe the itse}f is
not maintainablei h' A V' " V '
4. for the complainant
submitted oidefiei” was recalled way back on
12.9.2000 iand. die tgeetitiont-:r had acquitted and had
this belateei stage, this petition has
beezi * x W
Z L’ 5. it submitted by the learned Counsel for the
_ h one of the accused has also filed a petition before
$311 the wound that, Iecalfing of the order of dismissal
hishianmmissible.
6. Insofar as the acquittal of the accused ordered by the
learned Magsttrate is concerned, once the learned Magistrate
ac-quits the accused, there is no power vested in the
Mafistrate to recall the order and hear the once
u
again. it is an error apparent on the face of the
circumstances, the learned Mag;is_t_J:ate_ sholildii liaiiel’
proceeded with the matter. Considering ithei eoiisluii
the case and considering the orale1″–..of
deem it proper in the interest of the oxtiers,
one passed on 11.5.2000 Magistxate had
acquitted the accused for of the learned
Counsel for the atidli ‘order dated 12.9.2000
by which ._ had recalled the earlier order.
In the lighto.flth.is Magstlate is directed to
proceed gwith afresh from the stage where it was
V 1 ….. ..
A ._ contention of the learned Counsel for the
petifioiier ma: :°t]1e complaint does not make out a case is
.. _. petitioner is entitlm to urge all those grounds at
of seeking discharge. Further hear and examine the
F is concerned, learned Magistrate to consider the said
application taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and
also if there is any medical gI’O1II}.d.
With this obscuration, the petition stands
. F