IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3719 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI.D.S. RAJASAB S/O SHAFISAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O. 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN AZADNAGAR, DAVANAGERE TOWN DAVANAGERE-577 002 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. M. PRABHULINGAPPA S/O M. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.2053/4, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE DAVANAGERE TOWN DAVANAGERE-577 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.185/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I.Act” for short), before JMFC-II, Davangere. Private complaint was registered as PCR No.309/2009 and later converted as C.C.No.1670/2009. After evidence was recorded, by an administrative order, case was transferred to the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Davangere. Petitioner filed an application under Section 326(3) of Cr.P.C, to transfer the case to the original Court namely, JMFC-II, Davangere, on the ground that the evidence was recorded by JMFC – II Court and therefore Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court could not have proceeded further. By order dated 27.09.2013, Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner challenged the said order before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, in CRL.RP.No.185/2013. By the impugned order dated April 07, 2014, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition. Hence, this criminal petition.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Davangere, could not have looked into the evidence recorded by the JMFC-II, Davangere. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited Vs. Shreeji Cab Company and others1, submits that proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act are the summary proceedings. It is averred by the petitioner, in the petition that the evidence was recorded in full before JMFC-II, Davangere. In such circumstances, learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM as also learned Sessions Judge were right in rejecting petitioner’s request for transferring the case to JMFC-II, Davangere. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
1 (2014) 13 SCC 619 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
6. In Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the evidence is recorded in full and not in a summary manner, succeeding Magistrate can look into the same. In the instant case, it is not disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the evidence was recorded in full and not in a summary manner.
7. In view of the said submission, law laid down in Mehsana Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited (supra) is applicable in this case. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV