Ashok S/O Jayaram Patankar vs Shrishaila Gopal Idli on 18 November, 2008

IN THE HIGH coum' OF   % 3 % 1
CIRCUIT BENCH         
DATED THIS THE 13?? DAv.( )F moVi:M:3ER,
 T. ' 1 V"   % V
THE HoN*B;.E MIe"Jz'j;s:*u1'cg N.' AMANDA
 

BE'I'WEEN:.V ,1' 

 

' Ashok,  "    

Chctana Ca-015: 

Age: 30  
B1-ajzchz '?ei1gpu;--;._ _   .. PETITIONER

(By 35'  };5.';i£11d§:§ia;;§addi, Advocate)

%  5:?'Ȣr0pal Ian,
 .;aTb9ue'f2&"yeaz-s, Occ: Business,

H " ARIO: H.2*£'(>;9}'¥5, til, Mandagodli Chaw,

Mnmna Hagar, Yellap ,
Distgrict: Uttara Kannada. .. RESPONDENT

This is filed under’ Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

‘v.’t¢”s¢:t-aside the oxdcr cfatcci 7.7.2003 passed by JMFC,
?YeBapur in C.C.No.59/2007 (P.C.No.7’]2007) Q etc.

This pctitkan coming cm for admission this day, the
Court made the following:

 



The 13131' court has  {he  AV 

Section 45 of the Inchan' V End'  .Act.    A
filed a complaint under'    oiieizce
punishable under    Instmmcnts

Act against the z’cs;’>4′()i’1{.fier’1t._

2. ;’;;g;=_1:o:: 3–i,.mm7 “o.f..eomp}aint, compiasnan’ t

has} 0£–é£ishonour of cheque from the
en “! 11” order to prove the same, the

the Manager of the Bank as

I .. DW§ memo of cfmhonour of cheque was

A eomplaialant on 8.11.2006 and tghe complainant

book mam tamed’ by the Bank as per exhibit

the evklence was cbsed, the oompiainant made

A. Vee_’anVa;¢3p1ication tmtier Section 45 of the indian Evidence Act

V’ prove that simaturc as exhibit D.I(a) is not his skxgnatum.

Whether petitioner hm received the memo of dishonour of
cheque on 8.11.2006 or 18.11.2006 has a direct bearing on

the decision of the ease. The impumeti order is not an

intxarlocutoxy order. Thcrefare, uhavc

invoked Section 397 Cr.P.C.

3. In the result, I pass tfnj:   " 2  
0fiB$R_

The pctmon"    _ not mam' ma' 1:.

I However, pciitipner Section 397 Cr.P.C.

Sci/-E
Judge