Growell Cnc Systems vs Sri. H. R. Madhusudhana
2022 Latest Caselaw 12773 Kant

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7198 OF 2022

BETWEEN

GROWELL CNC SYSTEMS
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. VENKATESH D.T.,
NO.18/B, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BENGALURU-560 058.
                                           ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H B RUDRESH, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI. H. R. MADHUSUDHANA
S/O. RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO. 793/1, 17TH MAIN,
59TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010.
                                         ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISHA N R, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER IN C.C.NO.7785/2021 DATED 29.07.2022 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT THEREBY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.7785/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACMM AT BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 138 AND
141 OF NI ACT AND READ WITH SECTION 200 OF CRPC VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
                               2


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the

impugned order passed by the trial court for having

dismissed the application filed by the accused under

Section 311 of Cr.P.C for defense evidence in

CC.No7785/2021 on the file of IV Additional Senior

Civil Judge and ACMM Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the

respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of NI act

against this petitioner. The petitioner appeared and

pleaded not guilty and evidence of the complainant

was already recorded and the matter was posted for

recording evidence of petitioner/accused the counsel

obtained time, later defence was taken as Nil and

subsequently the application filed by the petitioner for

recalling the stage and also lead the evidence of

defense evidence of the accused which was rejected

by the trial court and posted the matter for judgment.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case learned counsel submits there are no

objection to allow the petition to permit the

accused/petitioner to lead the evidence of the

defense. Considering no objection from the

respondent counsel and the records which reveals the

petitioner was denied opportunity for leading evidence

of the petitioner/accused. A fair trial is guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, denying

the opportunity for the accused leading evidence is

not correct, therefore the impugned order passed by

the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable

to be set aside.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

The impugned order of the trial court in

CC.No7785/2021 is set aside. The petitioner is

permitted to lead defence evidence on his behalf.

However petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary

adjournments before the trial court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV