IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05"' DAY' OF OCTOBER 2009 BEFORE THE HON 'BLE MR. JUSTICE IiULUVADI.G.RAMESH CRIMINAL. PETITION NO.2748 OF gens BETWEEN: Sri.Jagadish, S/o late Sri.Gangaiah, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.13/1, 8"" Cross, Malleshwaram, Banga1ore--560()03. ...PETITIONER (By Sri.A.I\/Iadhusudhana Rao, Adv.) AND: Sri.N.Subramaniam, Proprietor, M/s. Sagar Engineering Works, No.92/A/1, 2"' Main Road, 13"' Cross, Vyalikaval, Banga.10re~560003. Also residing at Gollara Quarters, No.27, 1" Main Road, \ยงยง,/ 3" Cross, Vyalikaval, Bangalore-560003. MRESPONDENT (By Sri.}.Prakash, Adv.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dt.28.5.08 passed by the XV Addl. CMM., Bangalore in C.C.No.63l9/06, allow this criminal petition. This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-- ORDER
Petitioner has sought for to set aside the order dated
28.5.08 passed in C.C.No.63l9/06 before the XV Addl. CMM.,
Bangalore.
2. Petitioner said to have filed a complaint under Section
138 of N.I.Act against the respondent and also in the
meanwhile noticing tampering of figures in the cheque, during
the course of enquiry, he intended to produce the xerox copy of
W,
the original cheque. According to him, the xerox was taken
before producing the documents before the Court.
3. The bonafide contention of the petitioner’s Counsel is
that he intends to demonstrate how the tampering has taken
place when it was in the custody of the Court. However,
according to the learned Counsel for the respondent there is no
error as such committed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting
the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by the
petitioner.
4. The learned Magistrate has observed that it is not the
case of the complainant that both the figures and the words in
the column of the cheque has been overwritten or tampered and
whether 8 has been overwritten or not, is a matter of full
fledged trial. Of course, the dismissal of the application filed
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking for production of xerox
copy of the cheque cannot be found fault with, since at the time
‘:9?’
of production of those documents he shouid have taken certified
copies of the documents for authenticity. Directing the teamed
Magistrate to accept the xerox Copy on the contention that it
was taken eariier to production of the documents before the
Court is not perrnissibie. However, the avenue is stiil open to
the petitioner in view of the observation made by the learned
Magistrate in his order.
5. Accordingiy, petition is disposed of.
1
sal-
]UDGE
Bkp.