TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the complainant for her legal necessities on 20.03.2012. Towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused had issued a cheque dated 27.03.2012 bearing No.0884534 in favour of the complainant and drawn on the Chikmagalur-Kodagu Grameena Bank, Kushalnagar Branch for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/-. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant through his banker for realisation, the same came to be returned unpaid with the reason of 'insufficiency of funds'. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused not only sent an untenabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Court. Perused the materials placed on record. 5. Respondent is being represented by his learned counsel. 6. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent of learned counsels from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 7. Heard arguments from both side. 8. The point that arises for my consideration is, "whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Session Judge's Court is incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?" 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments mainly canvassed a single point stating that no reasonable opportunity was given to the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement for returning the cheque at Ex.P2, a copy of the legal notice said to have been sent by him to the accused at Ex.P3, reply of the accused to the said notice at Ex.P5 and the complainant's application to the Post Master, Piriyapatna about the delivery of the postal article to the addressee at Ex.P6. 13. A perusal of the Trial Court records would go to show that the complainant got his examination-in-chief concluded on 22.10.2013 after marking exhibits from P1 to P6 from his side. The matter was adjourned for the cross examination of P.W.1 to the date 02.12.2013. On the said day, the accused had remained absent and the matter was adjourned to 29.01.2014. In the meantime, the case was transferred to a different Court. On 29.01.2014,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.11.2014. On 26.11.2014, the request made by the accused for an adjournment was rejected and defendant's arguments was also taken as 'heard' and the matter was posted for Judgment, to 10.12.2014. However, on 10.12.2014 and the next date of hearing which was 22.12.2014 the Court did not pronounce the Judgment and posting the matter to 31.12.2014, it proceeded to pass the impugned Judgment convicting the accused before it as guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 14. The above recording of the proceedings in the Trial Court shows that though the matter was initially posted for further cross examination of P.W.1 and was called for the said purpose on 17.02.2014, the request for an adjournment was rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... request of the accused for an adjournment was rejected mentioning that no sufficient ground was made for adjournment and the defence evidence was taken as 'nil'. On the very same day, the arguments from the complainant's side was also heard and the matter was posted for defendant's arguments in the same month i.e. on 26.11.2014. On the said date also, rejecting the request made by the accused' side for an adjournment, the Court took the defendant's arguments as 'heard' and posted the matter for Judgment. However, for pronouncing the Judgment, the Court, on its own adjourned the matter twice. This clearly goes to show that the defendant was not even given a minimum accommodation in the form of short accommoda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Trial Court which was further confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded with a direction to the Trial Court to give a reasonable opportunity to the accused to further cross examine P.W.1 and to lead defene evidence if she opts so. However, considering the fact that the criminal case in the Trial Court is of the year 2014, in order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the said criminal case, I am of the view that the parties in this petition be directed to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date and the Trial Court be requested to dispose of the said criminal case at the earliest. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allo....