The court rejected a criminal revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to adduce evidence. The High Court held that allowing the revision would defeat the object ofChapter-XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The criminal revision petition rejecting the admission was dismissed at the threshold.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.347 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
K.S. Leelavathi, Wife of K.Rajanna, Aged about 46 years, Residing at S.D.A.H.L.B.C.No.1, (C.N.N.L), B.M. Road, Channarayapatna Town, Hassan District. …PETITIONER (By Shri. S.D.N.Prasad, Advocate) AND: B.P.Umesha, Son of B.N.Puttanna, Aged about 47 years, Residing at RAghavendra Nagara, Behind LIC Office, Holenarasipur Town, Hassan District.
…RESPONDENT
(respondent served)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 28.2.2012 passed in C.C.No.32/2008 by the Civil Judge and JMFC., Holenarasipur.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order
of the Trial Court rejecting the application seeking to adduce evidence. After recording the statement of the present petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’, for brevity), the matter was set down for defence evidence. The petitioner not having tendered evidence, the court was compelled to record as on 18.06.2010 that the petitioner did not have any evidence and the matter was posted for final arguments. It is at that stage that the petitioner has filed an application seeking permission to adduce evidence. The court has rejected the same in a detailed order, which is sought to be questioned.
3
Having regard to the object of the legislation including
Chapter-XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be defeated if this petition is allowed, the petition is therefore
rejected at the threshold.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision petition, filed to set aside an order rejecting an application to adduce evidence in a cheque dishonour case, was maintainable and merited admission.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.S. Leelavathi
B.P. Umesha
Anand Byrappadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
