~ ., Ag_B"yksfij1~:.V"eujn1iva;é;é§ Sri MR. Shashidhar, aclvs.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, _ DATED THIS THE 19TH DA}; OF' JULY % _ _: " BEFORE Q i THE HONBLE MR. Criminal BETWEEN: . A L' 4' Yelahanka Mexchants" . V Finance Compazgy Pvt, Ltd.,'"~ V. L.V. Compkex, RQa_;I',, V Yelaharzk-Ea, --:j » * Bangalorcj-S-50'¢3;€_>4~. ' Represented byf its' ' And G.P,A.%Ho2;_1er;M Smt. Girijag . _ ' ' W/:3 Gam1dappa." ~ % APPELLANT Sfi'. ' S / 0 E. Shivarudraiah, = ..M;§.1jor;"N<3. 10, OM Finance, Kajtiyappa Complex, "..O1<.i Checkpost, T. Dasarahalfi, V: Bangalore:-560 057. RESPONDENT
(By Sri T. Kodandarama, adv.)
ii-iii
fé
‘*=,af /;,:;»]f”‘;}”
‘:1 ,:.:’;”»~”
lending advance to variaus custemers. n”HThe
F
‘J
respondent availed loan from the appeiientf
.; ‘{
company, on 16/6/2080. Respondent fies $ge_fer_ ‘
a sum of Rs.25,486f-, therefore a cnefineyfletefi
26f9/2000 Came to be issued ey the rés§oneén£=e
which is not in dispute} When the eéie cheque
was presented for enceenfient the eene came to
be bounceé. Therefiere fitter eéegiyzng of the
mandatory pteeisrgps er Seellaé of N.I. Act, a
comylaiflr eéene ‘tef be ifiied. Initially
respeneent Genie fi%§_neWeerved therefore he
was %ieCefi’en;§erte2V’ After censidering the
evidence amt vthen efipellant, the trial Court
°*cdn§ifitede the ‘respondent iiiii and directed the
tureependentkte pay a sum of Rs.30,00G/– towards
dne, whine was challenged by the respondent in
§:;:1.’A,.:%:o.1:582/05 which wee allowed and the
i,matter was remanded to the tria; Court. The
“u._erder sheet maintained by the triai Court
disciosee that on 21/LXO6 the reependentw
2″‘: (“Z
a:
1/’£’r”.):>/’
– 4, a I
4… — -‘
5
accused was permitted to deposit 25% oi the
fine amount as ordered. But he _:a1i¢af5§¢t
deposit the same, he remained absefit,aadoN3W«.i
was iesued. Though P.W,l awasl pteseht woo
3G/6/2086 he could .hot be °cxose?efiamioed. ;
Since the appeilant–oomoaoy ufiied flseverai
cheque bounce casé$~ag§i§gt its custooers and
Smt. Girija:?.W.i, flog J%%§ m%$éN§fiahager she
alone wafii iE%kifié€=§%fi§%t fill: these cases.
Therefore iage ‘caahif nae” be present on
ii/8fié0¢o}”m2£éf2@§6u aha HE/§/2806. But the
trial Court upaeseéa the impugnedt order under
cha;1engea’statino ‘that it appears that the
V”cofip1ainant is not interestefi in prosecuting
i*the tease, Fahd dismissed the case for non-
proseoutiom, on the qxouno that P.W.l is not
‘”= “aVaiiaole for oross–examination. The order
Vases: Hmintained by the trial Court clearly
i’*~indicates that in most of the hearing dates
P.W.1 was present before the Court for cross-
‘E-‘E
examination, even on 23f8f2GG5. f_iEfitd”Qfi,
6/9/2006 the respondent aeeu8edH”we§t present”
but P.W.l was not presenttg
The contention of the learned eodnsel for
the respondent is that siecé the triel Court
has dismissed the jcemfilaietfafiled by the
appellant,_. the {‘ae§¢aldtfis’f’het at all
maintaineble!5¥fheetepgellent’ ought ta have
filed petitied under sée;432 Cr.P.C. In fact
the ” who initially filed
petitiod*, under , See.482 Cr.P.C. int Crl.
~.t ?etiti§n_ No.?5EfG7, einee office has raised
‘ebjeetiefi regarding the maintainability of the
said petitibn, the said criminal petition was
‘i eonrerted into this appeal. Moreover, the
]}§rde: under challenge discloses that the
‘ eemplaint was dismissed for nonwprosecution
dz end thus the trial Ceurt acquitted the
respondent for the charges levelledi against
13
before the Court below on 1],/8/2OQ§3_
Lr ; = <
0th the parties are directed to