IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE c.R. KUMARAS\!I'A§¢fi'.. BETWEEN: T D SATHYA MURTHY MAJOR PROP: TIDAL OVERSEAS NO.23/9, SELVALAKSHMI NAGAR . ' M S NAGAR, 15"' STREET KANGU MAIN ROAD TIRUPUR-- 641607. V .._..;R'ETITIONER (BY SRI: VINOD KIUI'-#\'§*B Nf._ADv'O'E:ATET = AND: RLFABRICS _ .... "'::;:_... NO.1016/5, 15"' ::=I_OOR'~ _ 10"' MAIN, VII CROSS " RRAKASHNAGAR'-_ _ . BANGALORE--560 o_21., _ ...RESPONDENT
V THIS _Q’.RIMTI~NAL PETITIONIS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CODE’ OF CSv2,,I_FVI’Il\;$_A.L PIROCEDUREMPRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
PASSED’ BY THE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-II, BANGALORE, IN
CRL.R–._P.’I’é_O.3′.1.0/ZOIOODATED 8.7.2010 AND ORDER DATED 15.2.2010
PASSED–..BY=137.5A”ACMM,.,.vBANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.13356/2009 AND
=;.,OIScHAROE’—THEE’REIITIONER AND SET HIM AT LIBERTY FROM
c;.c…NO.I33’3§/2009,, ” ‘
‘ “W1’i,”,”«.__OTI-IISJCRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION BEFORE
THE ‘COURT ‘THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING?
£9/,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO3867 O’!?OO2f’_{_)¥1*_.F)?’.:O-..O I
the notice. The accused received the said notice and
requested the complainant not to take any action as_pe’r._V_
notice and promised to supply the machine beforefen-d’_’V:-sift
October 2008. The accused did not deiiver as it
promised. Subsequently, the accused issuedtwo-.che’que’s’as it
mentioned in the complaint, which got bounced.
it is alleged that the accused has an’offen:ce under
Section 138 of Negotiable Ins:trLIme.é_nts.
5. The sum anci_:Vsubsta’nce’ t:h’e,i*’findiri;giVV’Vof the Court
below is as under;-‘ ‘
At the,p’re;t’riraig_.Sta.§e t.hVe~.:Court cannot assess whether
the cheque * beenV_.”f.or.fje’cf.::””wi’th the signature of the
accused and ,whethe,r’ there is liability to the complainant.
C).rj’1J”t’heso.t.h:er:._”rhand, the””a’v’erment made in the complaint
makE3s__ transaction with accused towards
jifisiupply of ‘This can only be assessed after oral and
–«.l.docurnentary eyidence is piaced before Court. Therefore, the
‘:.r.ria.i that it is not a fit case to discharge the
h Accordingly, the application filed by the accused
ex’
this rule in so far as it empowers the Magistrate to discharge
the accused at any previous stage of the case for reason,srl.t:or._V_
be recorded by such Magistrate, if he considers the
groundless. But in the instant case, the case isv—p..ost,ed*l~::f’o.r
plea of the accused. No evidence
Therefore, the question of examini’n.g the”r;l_ocume.nts,_ialglthéz it
pre-trial stage does not arise. However, iswlltiaellicontehtion
of the learned counsel for be
given to the petitionerpto file’€11?El}pll1iV.dt3tiofi..,V;jndigfigection 73
of Evidence Act If such an
application is trial Court shall
dispose of the same in Withwthese
observations, this Criminal” The
observations made herein.¢hAalll4rictVinfluenlcellthe trial Court
while deciding tiie’rii–atter on?–f’rne’r’its.
Ségfe
Eff?