IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA!_IQ.R'E.._
DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY OF NOvEMBE_R:;"'2g'gg--.f: if _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAIN,/aD'HHRAHIM'
CRL.R.P. NO;I74--5V3 OF2009
BETWEEN:
BYREGOwDA,S/O LATE £V_l_ARIGC)_WDA', 3
AGED ABOUT 42YE_ARS=' -
SODUMUDDANAK"EP{E_,, '-PETE, 'TM-LA'!ALLI,
'PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIM.ANA!'J'DA,.:'AD\[.')_ '
RAVI,_ SXO '€;jAL_A§I<*
I TEiIS--jCRVL.RP FILED U/8.397 R/w 401 CR.P.C BY THE
U_R_.A'DT\/'O.C:l§.«'._EE»»"FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONfBL'E<'_COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 11-12-08 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COurt,~IV MANDYA IN CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION NO.136/O8 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 12-
-.03-«O8 PASSED BY THE MAGISTRATE, JMFC, MALAVALLI IN
CC N,O.386/O7 AND PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS
DEEM FIT UNDER THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
'~.x CASE,ETC,
THIS PETITION ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:---
1g\:1/
I/'
ORDER
This revision petition is directed agairsst tfhexl’ord-er *
dated 11-12-2008 in Crl. RP. No.’Ji”36/’20i18.pas_sed_by’th’e A
learned Sessions Judge, Fast Tr’a._cl'<lpert"s opinion.
2. “”” ‘listed””f~or'”admission.
” It __’behalf of the petitioner that
accused signature appearing on the
c_heq’ue»a.n.d«there was no need for referring the
che’q–ue’v.for’_e.><i'pe_rts opinion. The learned counsel relies on
the.'observua;t_ior1Vs made by the learned trial Judge in Para–7
T_of the inripuhgéned order, which reads thus:
2 ;"'i–._"When the complainant of CC 376/2007 gave
" Nevidence before court, he was cross~examined
by the accused and it was specifically
suggested to him at the end of Para–3 that
Ex.P1 cheque is neither written nor signed by
the accused. Similarly when the complainant
U
expe;%t's opinion–was necessary.
counsel"'for-peti'tioner, I have examined the records as weii
_e as th"e.irn:pu'gfined cheque.
it As couid be seen the accused has taken stand
the cheque book was lost. He denies any money
transaction between the parties and having issued the
3
of CC 386/2007 gave evidence before the triai
court he was cross-examined by the accused
and it is elicited that the accused had only
signed Ex.P1 cheque in presence of thej”g
complainant and that ail other writings in
were already fiiled up even before the accused.’*-
had approached the complainant seeking—iioan:–
It is aiso brought out in the cross–exanji’n~.atiof_n~
of PW1 of cc 386/2007 that…hi_msei-f and7.’;vthe~
other complainant Rangaeswan*iy.V ‘tare –.__co;~._
brothers having married sisters_”iaindli’.he has
also admitted that one of the sister of Sh.;anka’r ”
is given in marria_g’e._ to*- Vcom’p.iain_ant..
Rangaswamy. The accus’e.d”is contending that
he had issued E)-<.__P1 cheq_ue'~of'C_C 386/2iQAO2*to
said Shankara a_s'~~i.secu'rityitifornrepayment of
Rs.25,000/– borrowed ibyifthe–t/accused from
said Shankara." " . 1
It is s_ubm-fitted.ithatdagiainst-l the said observations the
learned $es_sionsV"*J.u'dgetseriousiy erred in opining that the
A Keeping in mind what is urged by the iearned
6
i
be denied an opportunity is if he had already.,””cross–
examined any witness and his conduct disentitlesé’
the instant case, the accused is not seeking””‘-to
witness but he is seeking to refer ldisputedi slignattirieslnto
experts opinion.
9. Therefore, tinder Section 243
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate “was, the process of
leading defence’e.yiden,ce”oyfithe_ac_co’sed:”.and in that course
of action opinion. The
is wholly unjust and
improper.” V l V 4′ l .
_1_0. ‘Fhe i.ea«rnedfSessions Judge has rightly granted
“”‘«…,reli’e,f:’i’ Tshe»i.impuxgne’d”order passed by the learned Sessions
no infirmity legal or otherwise calling for
VK
inte,_rferen.ce.1i_ Hence, the same is confirmed.
Accordingly, the revision petition is rejected.
Sd/-1;;
Tudge