IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1544/2019 BETWEEN:
MADHU SHETTY S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.10, 1ST MAIN 16TH CROSS, SVJ NAGAR MOODALAPALYA BANGALORE – 560 072.
(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND:
SUNDARAIAH S/O LATE MARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YARS R/AT 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN PATTEGARANAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 079.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.5187/2016 DATED:14.02.2019 AND PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER TO EXAMINE THE BANK MANAGER, ICICI BANK, VIJAYANAGAR BRANCH, BANALORE AS DW-2.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Vishnumurthy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. When the matter was set down for final arguments, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C came to be filed for permitting the accused to examine one Sri. Ramu-D.W.2, who is working as Bank Manager in ICICI Bank, Vijayanagar branch, Bangalore and sought for issuance of summons to him. It was contended by the accused that he had an account in the said bank and two cheques bearing No.685255 and 685256 dated 05.02.2015 and 25.11.2015 respectively claims to have been presented through said Bank and complainant himself has admitted that only one cheque bearing No.685255 had been presented and not the other cheque bearing No.685256, as such he intends to examine Bank Manager.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Vishnumurthy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that accused had bank account in ICICI bank and same has been closed. In that view of the matter it is necessary for the accused to establish his defence by examining the branch manager. Even if account is closed nothing prevented the petitioner –accused from obtaining either certified extract of his bank statement which would reflect the transaction relating to both cheques or otherwise. Such exercise of securing the details from said bank with regard to status of both cheques having not been undertaken by the petitioner, it cannot be gainsaid that Manager is to be summoned, when the matter was set down for final arguments. Hence, this Court is of the considered view, learned trial judge has rightly dismissed the application and it would not call for interference. Hence, no grounds are made out to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE RU