M/S Namdhari Seeds Pvt Ltd vs Sri S P Nagesh Babu on 9 June, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 0973 DAY OF JUNE 2008

BEFORE

THE i~ION'mE Mr. JUSTICE H N NAGAMoHAN.--$A$   

CRL.P.NO.854 01:' 2oo6_
BETWEEN ' '

M/S NAMDHARI SEEDS PVT LTD 
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSIS'I'AN'E' 

GENERAL MPs.NA(}!:}R.   '

SR: '1' MANJUNATHA

BIDADI BANGALORE. V A

  % jy -  PEfr1fI'1,<)NER

(By sn ; uDAY411<7iJzsr:§m_._s.1feGi1, AD$;I;f}   

312: s P NA(3§ESf4ivE31V5L'B1;?'A._ J 
S10 3 PALAI{SH1?PAw ~ V

_.v ..BHUDEZVI A'-SRO CENTRE,

ms'1';L1--N¥;§MA*'2.f1.

°=fmLu--;~: Hormani, _

t3.1§§f;sH!r9iQG.A;»{._ 
~.  "    RESPONDENT

V -(By 5:1; H B"R'UDREsH, ADV.)

CI§L.__§*' FILED U/S482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE

  FOR'"'£HE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HUMBLE
 Tcr)u.mi.*MAy 131:: vmsasuu TU m::sro:<:_~; 'm;_«.: COM}-'L.A1N'i'
QEN 'C.C.NO.12728/O3 ON THE FILE OF' THE xxn A.C.M.M.,

  I non' av Dunn! I nw"; mum r\1'.3n3:.3D rw' 1 '7 nc:
 tfwnxm, LJ1 .l.\].J\..a(k1J.|J1£'l\.) 3»1l.I..'.J \.J.I.\.L.J.I.Jl\ I.J1«.Lul «kid.

91%



b.)

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner filed C.C.No.12728/2003

Chief Menopolitan Magstrate j_

Punishable under Section 138 or neggeabze V

Act for dishonor of cheque.

cognizance of the ofi”eneo.__ aiijomned for
recording the sworn :.;h:§«;””‘i’3et:itio11e1′ was
absent before there was no
xeplesentatiosi. Petitioner came to
be order. Hence this

I3€titio31.i*–._ ” i

I?etiiione1f_centends that the ofioer in charge of

the”eo.se.je*as«oiivoflicial duty outside Bangalore City and as

e1ieii’–.heVV._nof£:ab1e to be present before the Trial Couri

«V on date. It also appears that there was Some

eiommaunicafion gap between the petitioner and their

.’ and in the circumstances the advocate also

Vi ” Iefiained absent before the Trial Court. For the absence of

it the petitioner and his advocate. the Trial Court ciismiseed

the petition for 131011-pI’OS(*’2C11tiOl1. Having regard to the

@.\/’\/k

amount involved in the cheque in question and the genuine

reasons given by the petitioner for their absence before tIt1_e___

Triai Court, I am of the opinion that the petitio11e1*”i”sf”~«__’

entitled for one more opportunity. However, Ltiezev

certain latches on the part of the petitioner I

circumstances, some costs are to be..!e§ied;f_A_Ai ~ . «
For the reasons stated a.bove,,__the following:

oamnn
5;) Petition is aflo’:t%eé.. I V V _ V

ii) The iIn:§11g1].f.’.d”_ ‘in

o.c.No.’:«;2?-28 enigma: com is

iii) A”I’.I_ie to the Trial Court for

— .. accordance with law subject

‘ the the petitioner pamg a sum of

‘ as costs to the respondent within

J iiireeks from today.

AA iv) ” .vV__A§?3ot11 the parties are directed to be present

before the Trial Court on ()’?.07 .2008

“1:>1<B/-

Sd/–

Eudqe