C1'E.R,P.2{}10t'2OO'£5
as THE HIGH come': or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD v
mugs THIS mm 8m mm? or T4 '
nmmm: " %
THE HON!j3LE §:nz.J1:s'rIc§: ° _
cmmluu. REVISION pmxmn no.zmo
Between:
Shx':i.Abdu1 .
S/G 1', '
Age:38 ye'a:"s,-_ "fl: --.
R/0 Kaiaippa Hcuffi, "
Someshwara .Ufchiia}
Thalapadi, %
Ltd. ,
" A C0.:13paI1§*.r<:g;istered under
The Ctimpanjés Act having its
-- -- < .. jg ' «. _15u.ImiI1iS'iIative Office,
. * f»it11;aI1i'bika Complex,
Ifi_IE"='VZl;)_o{z', No.4, Lady Desikachafia Read,
'- , -..Mal'iap1:,rx3, Chennai having its Branch Office,
.A_t Hubli, 1" Flavor, Chjkkavecrayyanavar Compiex,
"«Nee1igin Read, Hubli,
«~1?cprcscntcd by its Manager.
PETITIONER
R%l'OHDENT
Crl.RP.IOl0f2009
2
This revision petition is flied under section 397 r/w
401 of Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioner
that the order dateci.O3.10.2008 passed by the I
Dist. & Sessions Judge, in Crl. A. No.39/2008, may 4}*;i.1'}djiyx ~ V
be set aside and the appheation filed by the })etit;o§ner'v ~
under Section 91 of the C171. Procedure Code,__Vm.ay' _
be allowed by allowing this orixniraaltzevisiori petitioz1'wfith '
cost through out. I '' ~ '7 v V V
This mtitien coming on fer admission, this day, thee
Court made the following: V V w_
1.
Heard the counsel V “The petitioner
was conviCte{i*A pfihisixable 11/s -138 of the
Negotiabie””I:1stIi1meet_st3.C.No.495/ 2004 on the file.
of m. (lijril Ji1d.ge «am J.M.F.C., at Hubli. The
peeeoziér fi1ed”e:~iJ;1ina1 Appeal No.39/2008. During
appeal, he made an application for a
t toV.<:oij:x;2t13:;lai11za.::1t to produce certain documents.
The" Addi. District and Sessions Judge, has
the application by holding that pefitioner had
"':1ot__;;i'1aée emf:/any attempts to summon the documents
" -ttaiough the matter was pending before the trial Court for 4
R}: (3 . ,
Cri.R.P.2{}I{)f2009
years and the petitioner had not made any
adducing additional evidence before .t11e4Ap};)ell'a'te;V t '
3. It is seen from the recorqfiéthéit. thej,’v51:Letter
pending before the trial froIzfi~.V.2i’#;.V€’)2..’::’.1f0(V23 to
22.02.2008. The peeuozjes steps; before the
trial Court to summon v 1 ..
4. The lea;’n.e(i__ eigbtnit that complainant
ought to have_ relating to the hire
” the basis to fasten the
liability. It igtefifioner that he had given the
-‘ etieque 01$’ for hire purchase transaction.
‘1’.}i1efir4ei’0Ife’,,jarediletion of ail documents relating to hire
;)u;:§<:h'a';-ate tfaiésaefion are necessary for just decision of the
"i"'1e petitioner has not disputed that he had entered
Vt plizthase agxeement and borrewed money. If he
"had discharged the loan or if the complainant hat} realiseé
Crl.RP.i2{)lGf2009
the amount he could have secured the
produced the same before the trial Vi"
partieulariy when the matter
Co1;:.rt for a period of four years. i."..
reasons to keep quite before "trial Iiiiivetliiibefore V
the first Appellate «_ witiiozit filing an
applieationhlead additional" the instant
application. The' I}:iLsti'iet consideration of
appficafiono, apotitioner' has dismissed the
application'; 4' "not find good geunds to
interfere wimkitmeiiitqggugyfiea order. Accordingly, petition
V. is di,s1"31issfedVVMat t1o;e«sta.ge of admission.
made in this order shall not be read
V V' _ as exgaressionf of opinion on merits of case.
Sd/-3'
Judge
.o " Jim I