IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1482 OF 2016 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VINOD KUMAR M S S/O SOMASHEKAR M P AGED 34 YEARS #NO.772, AKSHAYA LAXMI NILAYA, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARBAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-72 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #NO.1004/1197, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, GIRINAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-85 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIRAM SINGH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SRI. M.RAMU LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA R/AT #NO.24, VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, 10^TH CROSS, KOTTIGEPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-91 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.B. PRAKASH, ADV.)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.20579/2015-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order of Acquittal dated 14.06.2016 in C.C.No.20579/2015 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has re-iterated the averments made in the memorandum of appeal.

3. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that the trial Court has not provided an opportunity to the accused to adduce defense evidence though the accused has stated in his written statement that he has defense evidence and further he would submit that the application is filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. to produce documents which are not produced before the trial Court and sought for remanding the case to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he has no objection for remanding the case to the trial Court and would further submit that the complainant/appellant also intends to lead further evidence, if the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. 5. I have examined the materials placed before this Court.

6. On perusal of the order sheet dated 07.05.2016, it is clear that the trial Court has recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On that day, the accused while answering question No.5, has clearly stated "

(cid:1)ಾ(cid:3) ಇ(cid:6)ೆ

".

7. The order sheet dated 23.05.2016 reveals that Sri.RLB, Advocate files vakalath on behalf of the accused with NOC of previous counsel and also filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW-1. The trial Court has not passed any order on application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.

8. When the application is filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW-1, it is the duty of the Court to pass necessary orders on such application. Unfortunately, the trial Court has not passed any order on application is filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court has also not provided opportunity to the accused to adduce defense evidence. Hence, it is necessary to remand the matter to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

(ii) The judgment of Acquittal dated 14.06.2016 in C.C.No.20579/2015 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, is set aside.

(iii) The case is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the accused for further cross-examination of PW-1 and also to adduce his defense evidence.

(iv) The application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C is also allowed. The accused/respondent is permitted to produce documents, as sought for in the application.

(v) Both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 03.12.2025 without seeking any further notice from the trial Court.

(vi) The Com