High CourtsSingle Bench(1995) 12 KAR CK 0045

Mallikarjun Traders, Sindhanur vs B. Pandurang Setty and Another

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 December 1995 · Citation: (1996) 1 CivCC 617

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.B. Murgod, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Cr.R.P. No. 621 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 185 words

A.B. Murgod, J.—The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the judgment in G.F. Hunasikattimath Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, for taking the view that the endorsement ''account closed'' will not make out the case for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Syed Rasool and Sons and Others Vs. Aildas and Company and Another, Veeraraghavan Vs. Lalith Kumar, M/s Dada Silk Mills and Ors. v. Indian Overseas Bank, Surat and Anr. 1992 Cri.LJ 2874, which have taken a view different from the view taken in Hunasikattimath''s case. With respect to the view expressed in the decisions of these High Courts, I differ from it. A Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s Madhu Steel Corporation v. Geetha Industrial Engineering Works Cr.P. No. 107 of 1993, DD: 23.6.1993 (unreported decision) is relied upon. This decision does not relate to endorsement ''account closed''. Therefore the view taken by the learned Sessions. Judge calls for no interference. No grounds to admit the revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed.