Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.N.DESAI, J
PARAMESH GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
MAHADEV N – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal based on complainant's absences due to health needs reconsideration. (Para 1 , 2 , 10) |
| 2. court's review of prior proceedings and trial conduct. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding the necessity of granting an opportunity for prosecution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. judicious exercise of discretion in cases of non-appearance. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. restoration of the case to trial for proper adjudication. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
2. The complainant has filed a complaint before the III Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, stating that the respondent/accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant. The complainant when demanded the accused to repay the same, he has issued a cheque bearing No.821701 dated 25.3.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The said cheque, when presented for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Hence, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the respondent/accused on 25.04.2013 through RPAD. But the said notice returned un-served to the respondent as 'not claimed'. Even though, the respondent/accused
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
