VISVESVARAYA TECHONOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY Vs. J D K REDDY DIRECTOR SAMYUKTA CONSULTANCY AND MARKETING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are filed by appellant challenging the order passed by learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint filed by appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents herein. The order sheet in the above said cases disclose that after filing of complaint the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and order to issue process to the accused. On several occasions the complainant has appeared before the court and taken steps to issue summons to the accused. As the learned counsel has not produced the entire order sheet in the above said cases he was directed to produce the entire order sheet before this Court. Accordingly, he has produced the entire order sheet before the Court. It is seen from the records that on 05.02.2009 the cases were transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Belgaum and made over to Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Belgaum. On 08.04.2009 the trial commenced before the J.M.F.C. Court, Belgaum. The complainant had appeared on several occasions before the Court and his sworn statement was recorded and the Court has issued summons to the accused. On several occasions i.e., upto 03.03.2012 the trial Court has issued summons to the accused and they were returned unserved. The order sheet also disclose that the trial Court has issued summons through S.P., Belgaum and also through Commissioner of Belgaum city, but it appears that said summons were not served on the accused persons. On 03.05.2012 the case was posted for awaiting the hand summons issued to accused persons, but the order sheet does not disclose whether the said hand summons were returned to the Court or not by the complainant. Thereafter, from 17.07.2012 the complainant had remained absent for three occasions i.e., on 03.10.2012, 02.01.2013 and 26.03.2013. Therefore, the trial Court mentioning that the complainant was absent and there was no representation, and therefore, though sufficient time was granted to complainant, he has not taken proper steps. Hence, by exercising the powers under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court has dismissed the complaint for default and accused persons were acquitted for the alleged offences. The said order is challenged before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for appellant has strenuously contended that the trial Court s order sheet disclose the complainant has promptly taken steps against the accused persons upto 03.05.2012 and considering the steps taken by appellant, the trial Court has issued summons to the accused persons. But, in the year 2012 and on 02.01.2013 and 26.03.2013 complainant remained absent, therefore, the case came to be dismissed. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner complainant that as his counsel in the trial Court has not properly informed the date of hearing of the cases, he could not appear before the trial Court on those dates and take steps. It is also mentioned that on the said date the counsel also could not appear before the Court as he was on his legs in some other Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner also argued that heavy amount is involved under the disputed cheques, and therefore, the trial Court ought to have considered the said aspect and provided some more opportunity to the petitioner.