5 V' ., THIS I+*i:.**r1'rI0:~I COMM} on FOR COURT MADE THE mLLwzN'~?§l " AND: ._ .' . '1' P NARAs:.:c1m.«.zy:I;3RTH?€ ;* AGED ABOUT 51 YE:2RS,"«V% RETD. KPFGL EM}"1.0YE'§E, _ R/O I MAIN,81H'€'fRO'SS,' V. SOMESHWARAMJEEAM,' _ A TIJMKUR-V-33 RESPONDENT
_rf’I4%i§S E’C i?I;IF.4_;«*ILEa U/3.482 cmac BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
PFAYING THAT’ THES HOWIBLE COURT MAY BE
EISIBE THE ORDER OF’ DISMISSAL D’I’.24.’?’.0′? AND
1:115 _13′}”«_’.’£’.I’I”zvr,}’I~’£I«:’:’~2.
PLEASED rrojsw
RES’1’OI<'E"I'HE OFEIGINAL FILE 0? THE CASE IN c.c:.No,9s59/06 on
' FILE OFTHE 'I213 ACMM BANGALORE ON RECORD 85 PERMIT
THE' PETE'. TC) CGNTEST THE CASE on MERITS.
ADMISSION THIS BAY, THE
9.3.23.3
u"Pca'1:io11cr is the complainant. He: had filed a private
éémplamt under Section 200 of Cr.P.C3. for an ofiéncc punishable
under Secfion 138 of the Negotiable Instnmnents Act.
r$'}t'
2. The learned Magetrate by his order dated 7.<3e'.'i2906 has
oxdezed for issue of summons. Thexeafter. s11m;3_3§;»ne'S#;a.S' "not
served and N BW was issued. Steps were not . f1'.:i¢'
Magistrate by his order dated 24.?.290'?~–dis:ifiss ed
as the compiainant despite giving 1i§§t…féi}:en
steps.
3. Since the o.;;1y”fm~ default,
considering the nature of ‘t§ri.f¢e:.»»__i:i1vo}veInent, 1 bd
that one :1 ;eTpet:iti0ner.
The order dated
24.7.2001? in XII Addl.C.M.M.,
Bangabre is set V to the learned
Magistrme for “stage where it was stopped
subject’ degositxi’iig”‘R”Sv.I,OO0/~ before the State Legal
Sd/-K
Judge
Services};