LAVINA D COSTA Vs. COMTECH SYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Perused petition and the annexures therewith.

(2.) THE order dated 20. 10. 2008 reveals that notices for posting the matter for final hearing at the admission stage were issued. Notice was served on the contesting respondent No. 1- Comtech Systems / complainant. ,however, notice issued to the respondent No. 2 Netcom Infotech of which the petitioner was authorised signatory has been returned unserved. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 03. 05. 2008 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , panaji closing the cross-examination of the complainant's proprietor undertaken by the petitioner accused in C. C. No. 424/2001/c under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 1881 pending in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Panaji. Looking to the contest on the issue involved in the present petition, the petitioner is seeking permission to delete the unserved respondent no. 2 netcom Infotech. Permission is granted.

(3.) COPIES of the rojnama reveal that allotment of the case to the Court of J. M. F. C. 'c' Court, Panaji was communicated to the concerned Court in March 2008 and the Record and proceedings were received in the concerned Court with the letter dated 03. 03. 2008 from the Court of J. M. F. C. 'd' Court. Cross-examination of the complainant's first witness - the proprietor of the complainant firm was started on 13. 03. 2008 and further cross-examination was adjourned to 24. 03. 2008. Due to preoccupation of the learned J. M. F. C. , the cross-examination of complainant's witness did not resume on 24. 03. 2008 and the case came to be posted for further cross-examination of the said witness on 07. 04. 2008. Rojnama further reveals that copies of some documents were furnished to the accused on that date. The case came to be posted on 25. 04. 2008. It appears from the rojnama that on 25. 04. 2008, the accused represented by his Advocate Mr. Vales prayed for time and the case came to be posted finally on 03. 05. 2008 for further cross-examination of the witness. On the adjourned date, Advocate for the accused remained absent and the cross-examination was ordered to be closed considering the age of the case and the previous order granting time as final opportunity to the accused. This order dated 03. 05. 2008 is now under challenge.