IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH BADI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5247/2008 j "
BETWEEN:
1
SRI.V.NARAYANA MURTHY
S/ O VENKATASWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
N.RUKMINI MURTHY _
WIFE OF V. NARAYANA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 36 "
BOTH ARE RESIDING ._ 3
NO. 1791, 14'rnMA1N ROAD
BSKII STAGE . '
BANGALOR13~5§30 070;; V '..I:?i+3'I'I'I'IO1\IERS
{By Sfi.B.R;"Vi1SWAjNA'}§é-5;,Jr A
AND:
1
WS OORPOR. TE'.SERwcE 1>v';'.1;1'1).,
NC «.1 86/ 1, J.,C;COMPLEX, ANNEXE
.S;1RUR PARK RQAD,SESHADRIPURAM,
-- 560020.
A L-'OT:
._ 'NO 7O."'ffVB}Q\(£ANA",
A NEAR HOUSE,
EAST,
VIDYARANYAPURAM POST.
T BANGALORE660 097
E * BY ITS MANAGER AND
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. HPUTTASOME GOWDA. ... RESPONDENT
a
l\)
4
THIS CRLP FILED U/S482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIOI\EERS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.31.08 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK [SESSIONS} COURPVI.
BANGALORE IN CRL.R.P.NO.53l/O8 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.10.08 ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S311 OF
CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.3l742/06 BY XII ACMM.. BANGALORE AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS PE’Il”I’lON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: . ‘ V. ‘ ‘ ..
.Q..}$__D___E_I$ _ V
Petitioners have called in questiionllthe’ orderi
Fast Track Court~Vi, Bangalore.datedO’2i3’_–1z1.2O08In
Revision Petition No.53]. /2008, bylll
the learned XII Addl.C.l\/l..l:\/i….,_ Bagngalofe’C.CI.ONo;3’iVf’42/2006
dated 14.10.2008.
complaint, ‘of Cr.P.C. for an offence
punishable iindieif of the Negotiable Instruments
___Act. Ih}:g:0the~ said the respondent got himself examined as
1.,arI:1ialsoproduced the documents. An application is filed
the-._petifio_ne1<s"under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act
I seeking surinnidning of the Managing Director of the Company,
"Ev."':3ecretaryI"'and Chartered Accountant associated with the
'_'_coinp'lainant's business. Said application was rejected by the
Llulletarned Magistrate on the ground that, neither the complainant
I 0' "or complainants party can be called as witness of the accused
,«%\g:§::;',,.
nor they can be called for cross-examination at the instance of
the accused. In this regard. the trial court relied on the
judgment reported in 2002(2) Crimes 368. Referring to the said
judgment, the application was rejected. Against the said orfder,
a revision petition was filed before the Fast ‘I’rac_l:_
Bangalore. The Fast Track Court also concuitedvjviitlillh
findings of the trial court.
3. Cornplainanfs business asésociates, “Man.,3lging–..g
Director and Secretary of the Con’r})Té;ncy cannot”Ahfe treated as all
witness of the accused northoughl theyljhtave been cited, could
be examined as witnessesland courts below
concurrently have I find no ground
to interfere with th5ep_roceedings.– .2
Ac_cordingly;’ fails and same is dismissed.
sd/-
EUDGE