K. Murthy Vs. V.P. Muniswamaiah

K. Murthy vs V.P. Muniswamaiah

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jun 25, 2015

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1177830

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1177830
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Pradeep D. Waingankar
Decided On: Jun 25, 2015
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 855 of 2011 connected with Criminal Revision Petition No. 856 of 2011
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 294 and Section 391 €“ Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 €“ Order of conviction - application to lead evidence - Complaint was filed by respondent/complainant against petitioner/accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K. Murthy

Respondent

V.P. Muniswamaiah

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 294 and section 391 €“ negotiable instruments act, 1881 - section 138 €“ order of conviction - application to lead evidence - complaint was filed by respondent/complainant against petitioner/accused for offence punishable under section 138 of the act, 1881 - when said case was posted for judgment, petitioner filed applications under sections 294 and 391 cr p.c. along with some documents seeking permission to lead further evidence - however, magistrate without taking note of those applications, convicted petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the act,1881 - against judgment of conviction, petitioner preferred appeal before sessions judge - during pendency of appeal, petitioner again filed very same applications with certain documents which were rejected €“ hence instant appeal issue is - whether rejection of applications by sessions judge, against production of certain documents by petitioner is maintainable court held - sessions judge ought to have heard both applications and documents produced along with applications at the time of hearing, main appeal on merits and consider relevance of those documents - however, sessions judge has considered those applications independently which appears to be not proper course adopted by sessions judge - merit or otherwise of applications and documents produced along with applications has to be considered at the time of hearing appeal on merits - such, both orders under revision are liable to be set aside and remand mater to sessions judge to consider relevancy or otherwise of both applications and documents produced along with main appeal - petition allowed €“ order whereby 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 applications and relevancy or otherwise of documents produced with applications along with main appeal - sessions judge is directed..........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. 2. 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. along with 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. 3. i have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent. perused the records. 4. 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.....

Full Judgment

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.

1. Both these revision petitions are arising out of the order on applications under Sections 294 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.

2. 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. along with 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.

3. I have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent. Perused the records.

4. 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. In fact the learned Sessions Judge ought to have heard on both the applications and documents produced along with 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 along with the applications has to be considered at the time of hearing the appeal on merits. Such, both the orders under revision are liable to be set aside and remand the mater to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the relevancy or otherwise of both the applications and the documents produced along with main appeal.

5. Accordingly, I pass the following:-

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 along with 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.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2015 Same Parties K. Murthy vs V.P. Muniswamaiah Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Pradeep D. Waingankar

Land Acquisition