High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC. Acquittal in cheque bounce case was set aside; complaint restored to file for fresh proceedings. Delays condoned.
Impugned acquittal order set aside; complaint restored; appellant to appear and furnish address for warrant.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
K. Narayanaswamy S/o Krishnappa Aged about 50 years R/o Maruthi Extension Malur Town, Malur Kolar-563130.
…Appellant
(By Sri R.V. Anand, Advocate)
AND:
T. Gopinath S/o Dodda Thambaiah & Jaymma Aged about 32 years R/o Neelakanta Agrahara Village Kasaba Hobli Malur Taluk Kolar-563130.
And also at
R/o No.65, Marikamba Road Malur Town Kolar-563130.
…Respondent
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of acquittal
:: 2 ::
dated 07.04.2022 passed in C.C. No.929/2015 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur and convict the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
I.A.No.1/2022 is filed seeking to condone
delay of 15 days in filing the appeal. Since the accused had not appeared before the Magistrate, issuance of notice to him on the application for condonation of delay and the appeal is not necessary. Delay is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
complaint was dismissed on 07.04.2022, as the complainant failed to appear before the court. The complainant was supposed to furnish correct address of the accused for executing the warrant against him. Failure of the complainant to appear
:: 3 ::
before the court and to furnish the correct address resulted in dismissal of the complaint and consequently acquittal of the accused.
:: 4 ::
the impugned order in order to give the
complainant one more chance.
under Section 138 of N.I.Act. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the order sheet dated 20.02.2018 shows that the accused did not claim the summons and thereafter warrant came to be issued. If according to complainant the accused had changed his residence, it was a good ground for the complainant being unable to furnish correct address. In the circumstances narrated by the appellant’s counsel, one more chance can be given to the complainant. Hence the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur in C.C.No.929/2015 is set-aside.
The complaint is restored to the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur.
:: 5 ::
The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the Magistrate court on 19.09.2022 and to pay requisite process fee and furnish correct address of the respondent/accused for issuance of warrant.
IA No.2/2022 does not survive for consideration, it stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Kmv/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the criminal appeal can be condoned.
Whether the acquittal of the accused should be set aside to give the complainant another chance to proceed against the accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Narayanaswamy
T. Gopinath
Sreeharish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
