AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
Heard Sri Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V. Naik learned counsel for the Respondent
It is the contention of the petitioner that, employee of the petitioner had left the job and hence he could not present the case before the Court for about three dates ie, on 20,04.2010, 19.07.2010 and. on 06.08.2010, It is seen that, on 08.09.2010, accused filed an application u/s 256 of Cr.P.C and Section 13-A of Cr.P.C and the said Court allowed the said application and last chance was afforded to the complainant to adduce evidence on 28.09.2010. On 28.09.2010, accused remained absent and warrant was issued. On 02.11.2010, complainant was absent and accused was present. Since, complainant failed to adduce the evidence, case came to be closed on 02.11.2010.
The kerned counsel for the Respondent submits that, petitioner is negligent in proceeding with the matter.
it is seen that, a cheque for a sum of Rs.31,74,200/- was issued and that since on the previous date, warrant was issued and that no information was given to the complainant that, accused would appear on 02.11.2010, complainant could not have been ready for adducing evidence on that day, in the absence of accused on the said day. Hence, order dated 02.11.2010 deserves to be set aside in order that, complete justice is done to the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC No.31369/2009 on the file of 14th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore is hereby restored with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.