_ . ..sUMArz;§A Rxamnsyiig .
IN THE HiGH mum or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 71113 THE 2ND DAY 012* JULY
BEFORE M 'T %
THE HOPPBLE MR.JUS'I'iCE K.RAM£u*!f4s§$.v V
CRIMINAL APPEAL NQgg%7j§g290g%% V ; Ak T T 7
BE flfififig
VARALAKSHMI,
D;o.mTE.THIMMEG0wm,
AGED ABOU'1'37YEARS, N _«
R/A'3'.NO.75, 13"3MAlNROAD, _ -_
2» CR{)SS,BSK 182' STAGE,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE -569.959, ' '..'2~APPEL;.Am
{Bf 'SR1 SHANMUKAPPA. ADV. FOR
M/s.KESVY_&=Co.1.
Q93
W-,iO.RAME€~3H;"' ..
r_MA§}Cl.R :1»; AGE,
030359 F"5?Q,Rs~,""
CRECENT RQFE3, 7
BE}-{IRE} sz,;4':>H§~"HzGa SCHOOL,
'HIGH GRQUNQS,
.. N ', 'A''~.BMAIGAL0R.E' --- 560 00:. .. RESPONDENT
– am D.PRABHAKAR, ADV.)
fiiiii
THIS CRLA. IS FILED U/S. 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
“ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER mxe/10/2005 PASSED BY THE
XVI ACMM, BLORE, IN C.C.NO.6.199/03 ACQUITTYNG THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSE P/1,::’_’/”‘<.;.<1';'s_a–f _
N.I.AC'I'.
DELNEREB THE FOLLOWING: A. ,
This is an appeal filed by gippeflant
challenging the pmpfiéty of the
order of acquittal Apassed..hy :ms§V AddI.C.M.M.
Bangalore, in 199 10/ 2005.
2. – in brief is that the
mspondazxsghaa Joan of Rs.80,000/— and for
repayment of”t{§e ‘ he issued a cheuqe Ex.P..’2
H2003 £i’V1″1&”iét?1V1cn the said cheque was presented
fear was dishonoured and rcturned with an
endor3_c1I:§:11tV%A4i?”insufl3cie11t funds”. An intimation was
:3? the appellant on 11/1/2003. ‘i’I1ereforc, a
20/ I/2003 was sent thmugl EPA!) and UCP
_ i:»3+« the respondent by appellant through her advocate
Eleinarldixlg the amount ccivered under the cheque. The
said notice sent under RPAD naturned unserved but the
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR Haamzq n;s’r,%co:.m% a V’
notice sent under cerfificate af posting was
but the respcmdent did not pay the amount.
complaint mum to be filed agairxsft
Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
respondent/accused, plea Waéz not V
plead guilty and claimeéitp AQ1’dee to Vprove the
charge for an ofienoe 138 of the
Negotiable ” examm ed in
part and Though the case
was for emss~examinai1’on of
appellant] 1′ appear and to tender herself
‘far Therefore, the respondent was
said offence. Being agieved by the
oI.’de1.'”€>f of the respondent, the appellant ms
_ ‘eeme this Court.
” Heard the argtments of Miss.Sha}311aIa, learned
appearing for the appellant Nene represents on
V ‘ ., fbehaif of the respondent
M /
– “‘7 /”
‘i: /’ .
-‘s
30-
4. It is submitted by the kcamcd
appellant that the appellant was very much –«
the trial Court when the case Was:=.g:al1fc4tin fiibizt.
could not be recorded. Therizfgpe, fiinjfinut ;
opportunity to tender herself the
trial Court has V acquitted the
respondent] aocL1@. liable to be
allawed by passed by
the trial to the tzial Court
ex1abIin§._t:he1.’ to appear berm the trial
Court and’ muss-examinafiofi.
” the learned counsel fer the
going through the documentary
evidfiixbe record, the point that arises for my
4′ “cpnsitiexfifieh and decision is whether the trial
‘ ” justified in aoquitting the respondent for non-
?’ of P.W.1 before trial court to tender herself for
:jfurt.her cross~«cxamination by counsel for respondent ‘.5’
and Whether the trial court had given reasonable
-‘5
.; ‘_.> /’
-:5:-
opportlmity tot he appellant before passing
order ?
6. No doubt, the appensgni’ ;
complainant before the
against the respondent. In of&e§*»te she
herself examined P.W.1 ixietter was
adjourned to 20/4}/2005,,’ iV::;iaj;?~-:1Vv9e?f§”;i;:;a:’r)£1dent/accused
was not present and the
order shmt indicate that she
was 1261:?-._1I1i;c:hV “the ma!’ Court. Since the
respondentVV”vz§:es. on that day, the case was
V.gdjo1V;fi?1e§1 i:.’}__2Sf5/2005. Unfortunately, appellant/P.W-1
28/5/2005 and the mac was agin
/2005 and she was cross-examined in
‘counsel for respondent on 25/7/2005 and
‘ matter was adjourned to 17/8/2005 for furtha
” —..”V <§rV’si;s~exan1ina.ti0:1 of the appellant, the order sheet
‘V”V’*»»..4″:.i11dicates that on 17/8/2005 and 21/9/2005 the
Presiding Oflicer was on lmve and therefore, the case was
-=6:-
adjourned to 5/ 10/2005. On that day, the appelleiit as
Well as the respondent remained
representation was made _ on behalf of .,
therefore, the ma} Court passed
the evidence of P.W.1
recording of 313 statement ‘- eeidence of
the defence has been ” matter
for pronouncement of- the 6/ 10/ 2005.
Therefore, on_ . pronotmoed the
judginelit In the amuse of
both pareesancx advocates on 5/ 10/2005
4..-1Af.he eug!11;___ _tQ.have gven reasonable opportunity
keep themselves present before the trial
Ce’u1«4t’-forV.adducing evidence but no such attempt
merit. Therefore, the trial Court has hurriedly
VT tile order acquitting the respondent which
to miscarriage’ of justice by recording perverse
””l/ J”
K . .
7. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the trial
the respondent for an oflhnce ptmishable _
138 of the Negotiable Instmmcnts;
The matter is remitted back to
direction to the trial’ court to perml’ the 1 to
tender herself ‘ for .. the
nespondcmt/accused, to examine
any other wtttn’ {if ;* and also permit
the rcspofident if any and then to
dispose of dour’ with law, Within’ three
1V;heV éia1:4:__§pf receipt of a copy of this order.
directed to keep themselves pnesent
L..__beforeé.thé l:r1 ‘a ! fi on 28[7(20%.
Sdf-3
Méggg