Allowed

Sri S S Venkatesh Babu v. Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2021WP/48820/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging an order closing the petitioner's evidence in a cheque bounce case. It set aside the lower court's order and restored the case for further evidence, imposing a cost on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.09.2019 closing further evidence was set aside; the case is posted for further evidence subject to payment of costs.

Sri S S Venkatesh Babu Vs Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.48820 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Sri S.S.Venkatesh Babu, S/o Sri S.V.Srinivasaiah, Aged about 47 years, Private Job, R/at No.41, 1^st Floor, 17^th Main, 12^th ‘B’ Cross, Ideal Homes, R.R.Nagar, Bengaluru-560098.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri Manjunatha H, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta, S/o Late Venkataravanaiah, Aged about 77 years, Residing at No.5, 1^st Floor, 50 Feet Road, Avalahalli, BDA Park, Bengaluru-560026.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(By Sri Kamaleshwara Poojary, Advocate)

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records on the file of the court of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, CMM Court unit, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru in

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

C.C.No.102/2017 and quash the order dated 20.09.2019 closing the further evidence of the petitioner in C.C.No.102/2017 on the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act passed by the court of XVIII Additional Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, CMM Court unit, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru produced at Annexure-A.

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing-B Group this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard Sri Manjunatha H, learned counsel for

¶19

the petitioner and Sri Kamaleshwara Poojary, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.102/2017 on the file of the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶21

The petitioner has challenged order dated 20.09.2019. When the case was set-down for further evidence of the petitioner, he was

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

supposed to examine his witness. But the witness did not come to the Court. Therefore the trial Court closed the defence evidence of the petitioner and posted the case for arguments.

¶24

Though I do not find any infirmity in posting the case for arguments as the petitioner was not able to bring his witness, however to give a fair chance to the petitioner to establish his defence, the order impugned may be set aside.

¶25

It appears that the learned Magistrate has given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead his further evidence and the same has not been availed. Hence subjecting the petitioner to cost, the petition may be allowed. In this view, the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petition is allowed.

¶28

Imposing cost of Rs.2,000/- on the petitioner, the order dated 20.09.2019

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

passed in C.C.No.106/2017 by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is set-aside. The case is posted for further evidence of the petitioner.

¶31

On the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall bring his witness and examine him, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Kmv/-

Sri S S Venkatesh Babu v. Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S S Venkatesh Babu v. Sri Sathyanarayana Gupta

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

Kumar M Yadahalli Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Goutham Jewellers Vs Sri K R Ashwathnarayan

Sri. B L Ravindranath Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Hegde Vs the State

Mr Rajesh Parekh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Mahesh Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station