IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5284/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI LAKSHMIKANTH, S/O. SHAMA BHATTA, AGE 53 YEARS, R/AT HULKODU VILLAGE, AGRAHARA HOBLI, KONANDUR POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA-571 623 … PETITIONER (BY V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND SRI S.E. ARAVINDA, S/O. K.N. ESHWARAPPA, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O NEAR GOVT. WELL, MAIN ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA-571 623.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2015 IN C.C.NO.105/2007 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2015 made in CC No.105/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli, on the application preferred under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., praying that the Manager of the Canara Bank, Konandur Branch, who was officiating at the time of dishonour of the cheques to be summoned to tender evidence. The said application came to be rejected by the Court below on the ground that the Manager of the said Bank i.e. who was officiating as Manager subsequent to the event had already been examined and it is also found that no case was made out by the petitioner to exercise discretion under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the summoning of the Bank Manager who was officiating at the relevant point of time is necessitated on account of the fact that the Manager - PW2 who had been examined has admitted that he does not have any knowledge of the transaction between the complainant and the accused.
4. It has been elicited during the cross-examination of PW2 by the defence counsel that the cheques of the petitioner have been received from some other Branch and it is found that the complainant petitioner holds accounts in same Branch of the Canera Bank and hence on account of incorrect statement it is contrary to records that application was initiated. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court does not find any ground which necessitates the application. It is but a fact that the transaction between the accused and the petitioner would not be known to the Bank Manager, who admittedly is not a party to the transaction except to the limited extent being the Manager of the branch in which both the complainant and accused are operating their accounts.
5. It cannot be presumed that details of all transactions in the accounts would be within the knowledge of the Manager merely because they are account holder in the same branch. It is not the case of the petitioner that PW2-Manager was privy to the transaction and he had any personal knowledge. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons set out by the trial Court for rejecting the application is sound and proper. The other ground canvassed by the learned counsel is that PW2 has erroneously stated that the cheques have been received from some other branch. On enquiry by this Court the learned counsel fairly admits that the records speaks otherwise if that be so it is a matter of appreciation of evidence and which cannot be presumed at this stage and has to be made by the Court appreciating the said documents. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any grounds which warrants for consideration of the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed without being admitted.
It is seen that the complaint is of the year 2006, the trial Court shall endeavor to expedite the trial and complete the same within outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE SBS/-