Allowed

Mr. Stanly Nelson P v. Mr a Anthony Dass

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2014CRL.P/1777/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC. It set aside an order closing the petitioner-accused's evidence in a cheque-bounce case where a witness was summoned but not served. The witness summons was ordered re-issued and proceedings resumed.

What did the court decide?

Order directing closure of accused evidence set aside; witness summons re-issued; proceedings to resume.

Mr. Stanly Nelson P Vs Mr a Anthony Dass — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1777 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. Stanly Nelson .P, Son of Late Mr. Anthony Philips, Aged 40 years, Residing at 195/A (new BBMP No.51), 10^th ‘I’ Cross, Sanjeevappa Layout, C.V.Raman Nagar, Nagavara Palya, Bangalore – 560 093.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. Vasanth Vincent Fernandes, Advocate) AND: Mr. A. Anthony Dass, Son of Late Mr. R.A. Arogyaswamy, Aged 72 years, Residing at No.206/24, BBMP No.91, Sanjeevappa Layout, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 17.2.2014 in C.C.No.27033/2012 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore closing the further evidence of the petitioner-accused; to further direct the court below to have witness summons duly served on the witnesses sought to be examined; granting costs throughout.

¶14

This petition is coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is an accused in a case alleging an offence

¶17

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

¶18

Act, 1881.

¶19

The evidence of the complainant having been completed, the petitioner had sought for summoning a witness and the application under Section 311 was allowed and the witness was summoned. The summons, it appears, had not been served on the said witness. The court below has proceeded to treat the evidence of the accused as closed, as the witness did not appear.

¶20

¶21

Notwithstanding the fact that summons had not been

¶22

served on the witness, apparently, there is a miscarriage of justice. If the summons had not been served on the witness, the court could not have proceeded on the basis that the evidence of the accused was closed. It is appropriate that the summons be re-issued to the witness by the court below, and the matter be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶23

The petition is summarily allowed. The order directing closure of the evidence of the accused is set aside. The court to resume the proceedings from the stage of re-issuing summons to the witness called for, in terms of the order passed on the application by the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Sd/- JUDGE

¶25

Mr. Stanly Nelson P v. Mr a Anthony Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Stanly Nelson P v. Mr a Anthony Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Kalpatharu Vidhya Samsthe (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Shibani v Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Dr. Guru Prasad L Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences