IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010___
BEFORE
Tm: HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH 7 E *
CRIMINAL PETITION N_fQ,45os;'2o'1o'.';V.
BETWEEN :
Smt.R.Saroja w/o late Dandapan3'_,_
Aged about 43 y ears.
Occ: 'B' Group Employee of BSNL,'._
No.G/8/13, P & T Quartets, = .
Kaval Byrasandra ' ._ _
8angaIore«560 032. S - *,,.PETITIONER
(By Sri.Sharns Ahmed Patiietn, Adv.) ..
Sri. Ningaiah /o::_Yt;,V_P. Kfishn"aVppe;,'
Aged about.,3_1"yeaI's:;;;_
R/at Yayfehalli" 'J Vil121gei.& post, _
Kutagi ho_bli.. 'Rani-aiiagar ta1Li'i<:. '
Bangalore' «rural d'i.strict._ .. ' .. RESPONDENT
V. 'tinder Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to
set aside tizae drdpr dated 24.8.10 passed by the 14mAdc11. CMM,
V}3§El1'ig&:'1i'CiTt§V,"»":.iiTi ..c_C".~{3.No.29-476/07 the order rejecting the
app}iAca--t}io1.1v 'E'.i;--].V'(;'9C1v:,"';IVi'ld€I' Section 91 of Cr.P.C. r/W 66 of Indian
_Evideiice Afct angcij application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
it " vi»'1.'hisE"Cr1.I3. coming on for admission this day, the Court
:n'adVe*th'e foll0Wing:--
O R D E R
Petitioner has called in question the order” dated
24.8.2010 passed in C.C.No.29476/07 on the file of.t’heW.14*?*
Addl.C.M.l\/1.. Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
2. Petitionenaccused filed
91 of Cr.P.C. r/W Section 68 of Indian
application under Section 3’ilV1’v”-ppf
direction to the eomplainant__;’_l:to:’\furnish Hrlocurnents
mentioned in the schecluie..l:l” _ it
3. Complainant for an offence
punishable alleging that. the
Cheque the petitioner has been dishonoured.
4. Petpitiioner complainant to produce the
mone;-;r§l’encling l1e_ense as his capacity to lend the loan and to
V thefofllence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. He
also-l’__sough’tVp_loif’recalling PW-1 for further erosswexamination. ‘
_ Trial!cou’1’t-ieonsidering the material, found that. for the
‘ pl”p1_A;;fpose”oi; proving the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. the
opllcolrnplainant is required to prove the ingredients of the said
provisions and there is no need to summon the document such
it as money lending license. Further, it also found that PW-I was
éfla
crossexaminecl by the accused and there is no reason arisen
as to why again he should be cross–examined.
5. The documents sought to be summoned are absolutely
irrelevam for the purpose of proving the offence un(ier
138 of the N.I.Act. If any thing is there, it is for
prove in his defence. As far as the _compIair;a”1it””is’_fCo’ncemed.u
he has to prove the offence with all the iiigredie:iis’Vre”qui1+.e:d
under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
6. in the light of the S6lII1(3,.’H’I:VVfiI:”ld’..I_’1O grouiitis interfere.
Srl.