GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. POLYKLAD INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant, challenging the dismissal of the complaint filed by it against respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act, contending that throughout respondents/accused evaded service of summons and absconded. Hence, proclamation was issued. However, respondents/accused did not appear and steps were taken for issue of attachment warrant of movables, which also remained unexecuted. Therefore, complainant was constrained to seek adjournment to trace them. Ultimately, case was posted for recording evidence under Sec. 299 Cr.P.C. Since one Girish Gowda, who was given power of attorney to give evidence had left the services of complainant/company, time was sought to issue power of attorney in favour of some other official and to examine him. However, the trial Court refused to grant adjournment and dismiss the complaint on 11/12/2017.

(2.) Before this Court also complainant has taken steps to secure the presence of respondents/accused. After noting the fact that before the trial Court respondents/accused have not appeared, the requirement of issue of notice to them is dispensed with.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 is a firm and respondent No.2 is its partner. From the perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that throughout the complainant has taken steps against them including notice, non-bailable warrants, proclamation and attachment of movables. Despite the same the complainant is not successful in securing their presence. Ultimately, the trial Court posted the matter for recording evidence under Sec. 299 Cr.P.C. At this stage on 11/12/2017, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that despite granting sufficient time, complainant is not diligent in prosecuting the complaint.