Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 668 (KAR)

K. Murthy v. V. P. Muniswamaiah

2015-06-25

P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2015
ORDER P.D. Waingankar, J. 1. Both these revision petitions are arising out of the order on applications under Sections294 Cr.P.C. and 391 Cr.P.C. filed by the revision petitioner in Crl.A. No. 25105/2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge rejected both the applications by order dated 5.7.2011. Aggrieved by the rejection of both the applications, these two revision petitions are preferred by the revision petitioners who were accused in C.C. No. 26983/2006 on the file of XIII Addl. CMM Bangalore. The brief facts which gave rise to these revision petitions are as under:- "The revision petitioner was accused in C.C. No. 26983/2006 on the file of XXIV, ACMM, Bangalore arising of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. When the said case was posted for judgment, it appears that the accused-revision petitioner filed applications under Sections 294 and 391 Cr.P.C. alongwith some documents seeking permission to lead further evidence. However, the learned Magistrate without taking note of those applications, convicted the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by judgment dated 24.8.2009. Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred Crl.A. No. 25105/2009 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner again filed the very same applications with certain documents. Both the applications were opposed by the respondent complainant. Both the applications were heard and rejected by order dated 5.7.2011. Against the rejection of both the applications by the learned Sessions Judge, these two revision petitions are preferred. Crl.R.P. No. 855/2011 is filed against the rejection of application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and Crl.R.P. No. 856/2011 is filed against the rejection of application under Section 391 Cr.P.C." 2. I have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner accused intends to produce office copies of the legal notices dated 8.7.2005, 17.6.2005 and 13.09.2005 issued to him by Sri. Nagaraj, Advocate, who is appearing for the respondent/complainant and the order copy in C.C. No. 19192/2006 by way of additional evidence which according to him is relevant for the just decision of the appeal on merits. 3. The petitioner accused intends to produce office copies of the legal notices dated 8.7.2005, 17.6.2005 and 13.09.2005 issued to him by Sri. Nagaraj, Advocate, who is appearing for the respondent/complainant and the order copy in C.C. No. 19192/2006 by way of additional evidence which according to him is relevant for the just decision of the appeal on merits. The contention of the petitioner is that Advocate Nagaraj for the complainant was appearing for the petitioner-accused in some other proceedings initiated by Co-operative Bank against the accused. At that time, towards his fees, he had obtained four blank cheques from the accused and thereafter the relationship between the accused and Advocate Nagaraj became strained. As a result, he misused those cheques by writing three cheques in the name of different persons and the cheque in question in his name and managed to file four cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In other three cases arising out of three cheques, the petitioner/accused has been acquitted and therefore he wants to produce the notices issued in connection with those cases to bring the truth before the Court. Be that as it may, the learned Sessions Judge heard on the applications and held those documents are irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the criminal appeal. Infact the learned Sessions Judge ought to have heard on both the applications and documents produced alongwith the applications at the time of hearing the main appeal on merits and consider the relevance of those documents. However, the learned Sessions Judge has considered those applications independently which appears to be not the proper course adopted by the Sessions Judge. The merit or otherwise of the applications and the documents produced alongwith the applications has to be considered at the time of hearing the appeal on merits. As such, both the orders under revision are liable to be set-aside and remand the matter to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the relevancy or otherwise of both the applications and the documents produced alongwith main appeal. Accordingly, I pass the following:- "ORDER Criminal Revision Petition No. 855/2011 and Criminal Revision Petition 856/2011 are allowed. As such, both the orders under revision are liable to be set-aside and remand the matter to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the relevancy or otherwise of both the applications and the documents produced alongwith main appeal. Accordingly, I pass the following:- "ORDER Criminal Revision Petition No. 855/2011 and Criminal Revision Petition 856/2011 are allowed. The Order dated 5.7.2011 whereby the applications under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. and Section 391 of Cr.P.C. were rejected are set aside with a direction to hear the applications and relevancy or otherwise of the documents produced with the applications alongwith main appeal. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the main appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."