IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5167 OF 2014 Between:
Sri Kiran @ Kiran Kumar, S/o. Subramanya, Aged about 32 years, R/o Plot No.62, Vivekananda Colony, Chinthal Bazaar, S.R.Nagar Police Jurisdiction, Bollaram, Secundarabad-10, Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri. Chandrashekara.P, Adv., for Sri. Venkat Satyanarayana A, Adv.,) And:
Sri Raghavendra, S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Aged about 28 years, Landlord, R/o. Kattam Raju, Camp: Kallajjanal Village, Mydolalu Post, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District-577 401, Karnataka State.
... Petitioner ... Respondent (By Sri. Santhosh S Nagarale, Adv.,-Absent) This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated:14.8.2014 passed by the II Addl. Dist. and S.J., Shimoga in Crl.R.P.No.173/14 and the order dated:15.7.2014 passed by the JMFC-II, Shimoga on the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.517/2011, and to allow the application dated:27.6.2014 filed by the petitioner. u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.517/2011 on the file of the Court of JMFC-II, Shimoga.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the application filed by the accused/petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. In a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, petitioner/accused moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall P.W.1. The said application was allowed on 22/03/2013. On 15/06/2013 P.W.1 was present before the Court, but accused sought time and the matter was adjourned to 27/07/2013, 07/09/2013, 24/01/2014 and 05/06/2014.
Inspite of the continuous presence of P.W.1 before the Court, accused/petitioner having not chosen to cross- examine P.W.1, cross examination of P.W.1 was closed. Thereafter, another application came to be filed contending that there was no instruction from the side of the accused and therefore P.W.1 should be recalled. The said application has been rejected by the court below.
3. From the facts noted above, it is clear that the Court below though granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner/accused for cross-examination of P.W.1, petitioner having failed to avail such opportunity, cannot seek further indulgence of the Court. The Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. I do not find any good reason to interfere with the said order.
4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu