K.B.Shivakumaraswamy, Aged About 40 Years, S/O. Late Basavalingappa, Kuragallu Village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 362/2012 BETWEEN : K.B.Shivakumaraswamy, Aged about 40 years, S/o. Late Basavalingappa, Kuragallu Village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Nagaiah & Sri.R.D.Panchan, Advocates) AND : B.G.Manjunatha, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Gopishetty, Bekkere Village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District. …Respondent (Respondent is served, but unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Periyapatna, Mysore District, in complaint filed by the petitioner vide PCR No.75/2006, which is converted as C.C.No.327/2006. 2 This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R The relief sought in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is the complainant before the trial court in the prosecution launched by him against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act, for short) is to direct the trial court to expedite the hearing of the matter, as the matter is already six years old, and in spite of the repeated adjournments granted on the request of the counsel for the respondent-accused, the complainant examined as PW.1, has not been cross- examined and the matter is being dragged on one or the other grounds. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent though served has remained absent and unrepresented. On perused of the certified copy of the 3 order sheet maintained by the trial Court. I find great force in the contention of the petitioner. 3) As could be seen from the order sheet, the complainant was examined-in-chief as PW.1 on 11.06.2009 and from thereafter, the matter is being adjourned from time to time for the cross-examination of PW.1. On many occasions, the cross-examination of PW.1 was taken as ‘Nil’ and later on the applications filed by the respondents, the witness was ordered to be recalled. In spite of such indulgence shown, the cross- examination of PW.1 has not been completed. In the meanwhile, on many occasions, the accused had remained absent. Therefore, non-bailable warrants had been issued. Now it is reported that, pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued, the respondent-accused has been arrested few days back and he has been remanded to judicial custody. 4) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the cross-examination of PW.1 is 4 not yet completed for more than four years, it is just and proper to direct the trial court to expedite the hearing by directing the accused to complete the cross- examination. 5) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the end of March 2013. Sd/- JUDGE KGR* .

Load more