High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Basavaraju H vs Sri B T Mahadev on 17 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavaraju H vs Sri B T Mahadev on 17 November, 2008
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE I-I£GI~I com': 0:? KARNATAKA AT aANGALoR§
DATED mxs ma 17*" NOVEMBER 2003 ._V  " 
BEFOW %  %
um HON'BLE w:.3Us'I'1cE  L]:  _
BETWEEN: " %' 

Sn' Basavarq3uWI*i
Sanoffiuchnhcgowda
Resident afNo.34, Mvlymfl   f

 Talnk

  _____ 

Came a§s:iA'%azm¢  mg;

 No.&'36, 

TEsia _ $.3z%la!Appealis$edu:§derSeafion37"8affiInCeée&

 

   set-.*la'ngtusaasiticMflaeo¢1iu'(fwad23.":'.m'7@sed

  rm   Fm cm, ammo, h cc

 Vfg.;$;aiss3~2o£m7,mmcmmsmgmamnmsmgummedma
 % '4:.'vSecnTonl38ef%heN%%' mm zsAsz,viaeAmm~a-A.

madewfoilewing:



Q1

Appefiant has challenged dismissal ofthe oompmm 

Section 133 ofthc Ncgmabie Insmnnents Act (hezew ..j  1    

"theAct"), fo1*l3isabsencebcfo1et3aet:ialo£_x.m..._  

2. Facts

relevant for the finis A’ n
Appellant is 1116 V

respondent is £13: accused. of Xuae,
2006 he an a sum ofRs.59,0(§1?4.fio to repay the
same wifilin two of despise idapse of
two mm rm. mm: circammms, inc had
issued payml of thc loan
were finds”. Appellant awed
a noticrfg of: notice thc anaadt due was not pmkl.

V. the his! coat: in was actian against the

made: Secficm :33 am: Act.

was posted for recording evidence, cmnpIaman1′

é ” in chief and the mater was adjourned’ m mazes? far ma
R 0:: me said am, cmmnaa – PW–i was mm: and
_ “E§nea–éfme the case was adjoumed to 14.6.2007. A copy oftlae atria shed
~ hasz>eenproducedatAmwxme-C, mitmeaxsammgnmcxwsa

wasfixedonl4.6.2fl07,itwasnotcaficdou&sa£day. Itwmadjoumedto

M,

19.6.2007 to 28.6.2007 and than to 9.7.2007; md, on :13 these days,
complainant was absent. Finally, it was postod £0 23.73137,
day, bocatiscofthcabsenceofflue

aeamea Magistrate felt that the eomplaiaaaa was
pmsocuee his complaint, am, by noadingma; ‘ ‘

to prove the guilt, dnsnaz’ ‘ssed the

respondent far me charge um Sec£ibn«..1×38 ovf’31§” .1 *

Act.

3. Aggrievea by the said raw. 1 have
heard me leamed % comsci for 113:

mm;     is sham In me

W  -M.
 axe'   dated 23.7.2937 mm' mg the

‘ _ $133;-af:hg_Act,”is’ and perverse?

A4′. ._ ofw leaned contact for rm apwfim act on

_ 39.5.2907 me cat: was posted on 14.6.2067, g was not canoe an

was cailed on 3.6.2007, which éate was not

fig xmowzeage ofthe cemzm or his colmael. It was am

‘:”VV.a¢i_,ir.%r1rnad to 23.5.2007 md to 9.7.2997; an! on an ma days, :1»
cmhinwtwaszhsmtashewasnotawueofmedacsmwhicdahmc

‘hp

cascawaaposted. But,zxnf<nt:numly,m23.7.2£}G7wcmq:lmamwas
oi

zbsentmdthecasewasdkmnissued. fnfl1ee'nemnsta.nces,hesub:fifl1at
theorderiswifiaompropetoppa:umhy£ofl1ea;3;)eHmtmdflwad'§ie.it£s
iliegal. J 'V

5. Scmtiny of a copy cf the order sheet

reveals the fact that though the mama was: edjo

not ed on final day. It appears math: ~_

called on 19.6.2067, the date,.-vyhich fie” ems
campsaimz or ms attvocate. in cum ta haw ‘mm
at twice to me new’ ‘ ‘ . But
instead, it to the eompiaiaant
to 3.6.2993 of the dates 1309: the
1: is because om: ran an: an
“aajmama am, am it appears the
¢0n3P1??i”‘W. ‘wa/5.’ It isz iemis eenaext flu: the omelet maul’ h

. e did the cm on 14.6.2907 3 per aw’. dated
m calm’ Hmpugaed is 3315531 and an

[T.”‘»-‘«4___V’But,itcai:e1;$ibesaidflaathehad’noit::ere’s¢top:etemecase, flnemelary

“:é:§ei3;§:;§_:@do1’de1″gil2egalasdéesa’\vestebeaetaa’de. Hem,immrer

V’ in the fi”nmafive md proceed ta pass the fokwimz

51,