I -.
EH THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 28?" DAY 9:: MAY Zfséiéfl if *
BEFORE
'me HON'Bi.E MR. Jusmcfi. 3PeW5§'D4R! \H'1:fi
asrwseu ;
YASHODAMMA *
W;'O.GANGA3QGI"€3£3WDA , AA
AGEE3 YEARS
No.753/B,;srH caossvk ,
mm MAIH, 35:41! sTA:.3E,
$RINAGAR';_ %%V %%
BANGAL€;_iRE"~"'?'..__ , APPELLANT
{By Sr! rs: vAGEE:--;3H, .mv.'}& .%
AND :
MKS SR1 DYING2:PRI_N'i'IhiG WORKS
R5932-.(rrs PRO¥?RI£--I'fOR
?--..KEsHAvAMvRTHY, AGEDMAJOR
-ay<::.'e2_, MA'£*:4:1:J$HRI NILAYA,
s/z'~'£RNAA~KUTIRA, 7TH MAIN,
' * A . 3vATAaAvANAPuaA,
V' fiE,W..VEX§'EVNSI0N, MYSORE R-0A3,
"--vVBAP¢G;J_¥3.{?#RE RESPONDENT
{B¥–~..S¥’i HARAYANASWAMY, ADV.)
*~i;’ «__”€3Ri..APPE1=?sL IS FILED U/’S. 373 (4) c:a..z=.c. BY THE
% V,’;4u;>wcA’re F09; ‘me APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
T “HON’_§LE CGURT MAY as PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
= JUDGEMENT DT. 23.12.02 PASSED BY THE XI! A<:MM.,
* Sterne m came. 29539/zone Am ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
' » 1.1/5. 133 OF N1. ACT.
2
This appeai earning on far hearing this day, the ccxmft
deiivered the foliowing
l_Q.I2_§.I:LE_£:LI
The carnaiamant is in appeal aa§i:1stthe’j’:2vd§;;wiéé9it«§;1 ”
PCR. Na.29539iO0 dated428.12.2O£3f’.?, 0535;§1é’fiié fif4’i3;§;{-cfii;’~’.,1V A
Chief Metropeiitan Maaistrataf ‘B.andéiafé, mt:fi:e .
complaint, thereby acquittine thgficfiusgé {if ;’:ha ree fer
the effence under SEC1:’.¥é!§ ‘138,; ?*3;2¢£§§éi§i¢ Instruments
2. The :§a*t’tfrf§:f1f5js:§.§3z2V.fr¢:m the year 2003
aftar no§Ecé”ta .
3. Hem. .
_ 4. _;CansidéVr:r:q_’ti1″e q ro1§nés urged in the apaaeal against
am satisfied the matter requires
Vfé;V;é~s3$Vi«ééTffa–t§§§1A’;V–5’Leave is granted and the axmeai is
L afir%:i’1′:tw..__” % %T
it is 3een, since the issue that arisw far
V’ .___”‘:”coi3sideration falis in a narrew carfiaasa, viz, the camplaint
-“N.
W’
3
being presented beyond the neriad cf iimitatiar: prescfihed,
I have taken it up far finai hearing.
6. The cantextuai facts as manifefi frot3′::’ih§f~_Vr}é:}§rtis ”
‘I’EVE3h
3) Cernpiainant sought pr§$a_:ufi6;a_ 6f the
for the effence under Section 261*: pfemises
that it had avaiied a cf for” fiusiness
purpase, r:;romisiru3_ ta re:na*;i .c;n reauefi
af the campig§n§fif;:_’*’§§sp;§n’c§a_§ii its promise,
conseaue;ji;V1{:¢*s..V§;i¥-!§§VE:t;:t:f; vffééiiaified unpaid. on
further 1_i:–.’~.sa:_’.e%i the impuqnm cheque
dated 1s.2%k.%1999& m ‘:e§Ai::<§4h'*a;§f£:é ef the said iiabiiity. The
V cheq1;=§wh.en4ér%'e$§'nied"'ta.fhe bank, was dishonaureé.
'Vb)"€;§tmf;3i:éifiant re—pr'esent'ed the cheque through her
bafibéf, bu§Tjt1fiéV'r$uit was the same. It necasitated
Tissuaiirze éiatufcw notice as erzvlsaaad under ciause (b)
' '{st2:fA:$'éct§oii' 138, 52.}. Act on 4.9.1999. Accused received it
'Ears: a repiy dated 9.9.1999, denying its iiabiiitv.
"= §i'§::e there was run comssziiance ta the demand in the
33""
4
statutory netice, the cempiainant evaiiw cause of aczfierx
as indicated smear Sectierr 142, mi. Act and nraentejd
eemiiiaint under Sectien 200, Cr.P.C. en 16.1O.1$!,,’=”3′:§3»:’.:’:V’5f’ ~
c) The jurisdictional magistratetoe§§’eeen#eAae_§:e.
nested the matter for further p,reg:eedines; Afte:f–“rcé§:Or:diVri§rj””~
the sworn statement of the con§§»i.e%’na_nt, £1-r$e:.’€ce v9fVV£he
accused was secmw whe;’_’e.n eef1efifie._V’e,3.;ieearanvee, eut up
defense cf deniai eimeiicitet,V’eec$e§iatievéft’;’éeii,
d) Duri;1«§i1″”vtrie:E:.:;’.’Vceeja;§e.!/fli§’atFieneéed evidence as
PW}. and_p-eieéee” }*–e§_iefiee «.i_ci:§>cuments, while the
accusefi eise tee&efee’e§’iee’n.ce “as DW1 and examined 2
witnesses. i’»:._reiie6″e:§
‘ The ~:.g;rned”t’ri’a*VI judge theugh neticed the ocuier
‘efsd’ evidence, estabiished incriminating
aeeecfe evea’i:§etT:; the accused for the efferece charged,
7-*44_’__theueht”fi§’i~to ignore that material evidence, and decidm
‘ ‘i§§5_e’.i_$ei:e regarding iimitetion. In this regard, the Seamed
‘ judee, though ne such objecticm wae raised by the
uufaccused, noticed that the lmuuarsed cheque was dated
53$”
5
18.2.:I.99§ and was zaresented twice; tampiainant beina
unsuecessful in reaiisina the amcxurzt ccvered un«’,ij-2-.*v:?:’j««§t;~V.vv
baaed an the bank endorsement dated 11.8.19;f£:i.§;i4_$S:§:’:j4aéi
netice as ccmtempiated unéer ciaus,e…(!:>_) of;’Séc£§§fiV”‘133, u ‘V
PH. Acfi caiiina union the accuseéi4’tr;%_’_’fi§.a§€c:.”a§G£j §hg’1.T.:
amount towered under the chéfiug tfirénfah _n:§:fi£:I§v«~v;iatéfi %
25.8.1999 viée Ex.P4. It was $_erv_ w .(.’ifi=f§.§
an 4.9.1999 and reiziy to “i’t 3&va$’–.$e:%g1’t’.éi:.’$*£3,999.
f) The ifiaffléfi § :fial_ §i1ée€ itai§i_§’§§’ note of the
€hronoEg,;3,<.–«¢ftftafiéidinq that notice was
issued Wm. 'tfie":7j:§ér§§6._::S;§;ip'uiated and was ta-wrui.
However, t§ie.._Vi&a:*:Vi&cia'f§*ia::_"".§udqe camputes the period 91'
.-v..i_imita'i§:m§: _fiieV"tii~e.;§rrap§aint frem 21.9.1999 which aise
<_is :ié*t.,in–.ei'r¢::. "viiiczwever, the ieamed jtmae fixed cut-eff
csm-, &fa»r%V%fi§£W;%Aii¢ comaiasnt as 2e.1a.1999, that also
' '.;anrz§i: +';+év.fa.u'iited. The cmiy apgarent error committeé by
'iegrfiéd juéfie is that the comp-faint was fliefi an
_;5.%1;.';%2§99 and mat within 29.10.1999. Hence, he
"*4:VVV¢é%§ciudes that the aampiaént was beycmd the parted af
W"
6
iimitatien. Such observatian is ta-taily against facts aha
retards.
2?. Learned caunsei for the ahpeiiant riahfif’
attention tea the cerhplaiht, Le. V
compiainaht ch 16.10.1999 fish
maintained by the office af ‘{:hji:ief>MeAii*hp§§!téj*g §€r:.§”§’i§ti:*ate 1′ V
which demcmstratively egtabijs-h*éA§”L_;th*at.’the flfifimflihifit was
flied in affice and reaistéféig’ at seriai
219.851 of the.vr駧.5ter;:’éhcj’ thhvvhdate of further
hrccearhhgé’_’ ‘Besides, iawer teurt records
which aAr’e__s::mh1:1£h§é::,.testimony tax the fact that
c:ffice:»ha_s nétéhf the ccmhiaiht having been
‘JV.”‘h:’a$'<éhté4:iA -::é':*:.__16.1§.'1'9V99. caahizahce taken therecn and
fuh?.h?ér shown as 27.11.1999. Therahare. the
ohs&1h.rati.ah:VL'hf9V'the iearned juéae that the compiaint was
7–.__"prf%eh§efi'*eh 6.11.1999 finds no subvert frorn the ofhciai
1 It appears the iearnefi judge mislead himseif in
' ngeéief that the cornhiaiht was flied eh 6.11.1999, aaerhaps.
» fhecause there is an errdcrsament an the ccmhlaént
msrparteé to he that of the Presiéina Officez" sighed as
7
6.11.1999. That entry when ccampared with other affisfiiai
records has ta be read as incorrect. The raievant V.
which the trial court shouid have examined is ‘
the register maintained in the cour’t,::’Jx}i2.:;’agrnpi-athi;’w;?§:¥é?
sheet and régisters. Since aii thfié~::.e:”«I5. do%i£_hiénEs’V
ariaihai are avallabie, an its aia{§1i.nati§h** ‘=35:
thay are against the o.sj:se;’vai:iVr5h ‘ ‘thé Earned
judge, 3:16 it is obvious that-J-‘t’vh§=3’v’vsE1ai?d have mt
been verified befargfeachihg finch. ééiicifigfifah.
8. Svihéé i€é;{fi::a{fi~jtr&a1Aiiiwze has computed the
pariad afziémitatiah: auaht ta have been
flied befcre 2a.um..1999_. Since the compiaiht is-fiiad an
argd r.’hfirs’i–2ahce taken on 28.1G.1999, it has to
23$ flied within the period cf fimltatiah
prés:;_:fthad;.. ieamed trial judge has dismissed the
V’-…_”::umhiat~h§”:.ahd gassed the arder under Sectian 255(1),
iindauhtedly, it is an erder fif acquittai and net
V’ dismissai of the petition slmiplicitor under Seétien
.uuj2fi3, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the appeai merits to
be alicwed. I dz: 5:). E Q
am 2,/’
E
8
9. The am:-eliant shait succeed in her ieaai pursuit. 1’ik;”e.b
arder impuafied is, therefare, set aside. Since the
juéae has recorded he is nut inciined to censider”é’;i:§e.¢:$:§é” H
an merits as the tnericxd of iim}tati;bfi”‘wa$
campiainant, the oniy caurse ppe:1 ‘§$ ‘~t§} féffjéfid
matter, directing the trial court £o’r;§i;5ide.§ {fig efiidefifié ‘G5
receré and pass arm-ropriate..9rde:’§”i:§’V%.:é§:i§§6.r§an?:Aé”witii§ iaw.
Since eviéence is ¢:em;::lete”,” recordina
further evidence, from the
staaa of arg3ur*:i ér§:°s.§s’e*i§é.__§ii§pj;§$es:§:”:§’:1.,.:*:’:erits, keeping in
mind the :ahS¢ar;é:aéj:fi.i’¢.:;i:*§;fs:a6%_’i§# A1t’ri1i’sVVv:i°;urt. The mat caurt
shat: Waite the §%é:é§d:%i§g.sf g[ %
<'.§§_f:cc:.. to.' reiuffi ioséer cuurt records and ?CR
:'V'v.2féfiVfi?i'£':'1'; §i':3.'i§fi3§ mt fcarthwith.
S63/*9
Iuclgé
JBJ s:
o1:e.::s:2oo9
EE
This matter was heard an merits am di_s§3bs{«.és1§’..’..§3§*L:§rs«%
28-aw-2609. After the judgement was rei_e:as}-§§d.VtV!Aéé: rfi-mas.
is mcaveé seekirsg ta rest it ‘ A_:*~.:fio”i»:r.-;>vzr§:L:_”‘V1:¢i:f:.’
Acccxrdiraaiy, it is hosted tadayr.
2. The ieame-d c¢uns%éi..:$£:smit§~-tffaiv’cvéirfmutation
ef xaerieé cf iirrzitation t§i§ fri–a;i ceufi find by this
ccrurt is incarrect. fi€n.fi1§5.»°§3té: the mriad cef
iimitatian%%fa{fi;:§rad:the céfapiéin-Ltkkfrém o4–o9–199<3, the date
can' semgé' fif to him the cumzaiaint is
barred byV3;€i. %dayVé-§.-._ A' " "
f?hé°’iea..rne:fi CGi}f’!Sé§ is mat in a pcsition to
‘é§.é;:u;te–v.§h& a.§§£:used has receiveé notice an 04-09-1999 and
§:’a;fi”té Eér:si’g:__i§{T1=.i5}ith the demands within fifieer: days, which
‘ faiis ‘s;r’£ i§’§G9–1999. The compaainant #136 39 days
..j ~tfiér&.fr§£h to ma ccmbfiaint, ia., within 19-10-1999. Afmr
* 2eé§i’L’:d:Ai21a aria €3’3Yi3Ei’i€2t5 ef iimitaticm ems cg’: 20-10-1999.
_ M _
The cempiaint is flied on 16«-10-1999, whicfkdeait in detaii
L
01″”
in
{U
in the firaai ctrder. Hence, piea ta the cofitrary is
unacceptabie.
4. Acceréinaiy, I find :19 T6336?! ta_.refi§sV:f;si£§::e?”_ariy*” K
cf the absewatiofis made in the erd; éf*
aiscs neeés tr: be observeé that mice th.e_=; ‘appeaiv–‘;’.é9évisi6fi ‘c2fV L’
petition is éispesed cf fir:ail§P.VV:.i_”2t’zci_er Vitézcfejhv-:of. 3fi2;fminai
Precedure, there is he sfiépe ‘$2.9 révision, in
View sf restrictiorgir: See:§_i§ z’r1JI}_{.é:r1c:e, the order
fiassed an 23»ejS¥;f§i;9. iriaecfifrzdf’Af§$§?fi1ér,:V%n’edificatien and it
is confifmed5.__ ‘
Sd/’ft…
T116199