IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.NATARAJU.H S/O.HAMPELINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT.NO.44, PAVAMANA 1ST MAIN ROAD, R.R.LAYOUT NAGADEVANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 056.
(BY SMT.SRIDEVI T.R., ADV.,) AND:
SRI.DAYANANDA S.C. S/O.CHIKKAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT.NO.B-5/774 K.S.S.R.D.I SILK FARM KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD THALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU – 560 062.
(BY SRI.NANJUNDASWAMY, ADV.,) ….PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN C.C.NO. 4247/2016 IN RESPECT OF I.A. FILED U/S.311 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE II A.C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt. Sridevi T.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Nanjundaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.12.2018 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code has been rejected.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the parties had led the evidence, petitioner realized that certain material witnesses had been left out. Therefore, an application was filed seeking permission for examination of the aforesaid witnesses. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order on the ground that no ground for permission to adduce evidence has been made out.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce all the witnesses on the said date as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard and shall pay such amount as cost as may be directed by this Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In order to afford an opportunity of fair trial to the petitioner and in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rural Court, Bengaluru, is quashed. It is directed that the trial Court shall fix a date for examination of the witnesses by the petitioner. On the said date, the petitioner shall produce all the witnesses and no further opportunity for this purpose shall be granted. In addition, petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- by way of cost, which shall be payable to the respondent on or before the next date of hearing before the trial Court.
8. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Judge VP