IN THE HIGH COURT OP kARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.NO. 12083/2010 BE R\ EEN Gaju S/o S. Meherwade 55 years, 0cc: Business House No.18, Opp. to Maruthi Temple Bhavani Nagar, Hubli. PETITIONER (By Sri.Neelendra I). Gunde. Ath.) AND: M/S Balaji Traders No.583, Avaradi Oni, Hubli A registered partnership firm R/bv its GPA Holder Sri. Gurumurthv S/o Mallarao Patil Major, 0cc: Business R/o Hubli. .RESPONDENT (By Sri, Jagadish Patil, Adv.) This petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the order dated 8.10.2010 passed by the learned JMFC-II, Hubli in C.C.No.285/2007. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri, Neelendra D. Gunde Learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri. Jagadish Patil learned counsel for the respondent in respect of the challenge to the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the respondent for production of documents. 2. The case is one under the N.l.Act for the offence punishable under section 138 and the grievance of the petitioner is that, though the Trial Court had posted the case for judgment on 30.5.08, the judgment was not pronounced on that date and the matter was adjourned time and again and this was taken advantage by the complainant to file document after document u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C and the Trial Court allowed the said applications and posted the matter for judgment and once again the application was filed seeking production of the documents and once again the Trial Court allowed the said application and thus the judgment is being delayed by the Trial Court for one or the other reason and this has given rise to the complainant trying to fill up the lacuna in this case by producing the documents at a late stage of the proceedings when the matter was actually posted for judgment. As such, the impugned order of the Trial Court be set aside. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the documents were produced by the complainant in order to show that there exists a partnership firm which was registered and therefore the Trial Court had allowed the application. 4. Having thus heard both sides, one thing is clear and that is, the learned Judge has gone on adjourning the case from time to time only for the purpose of judgment and once the case is posted for judgment, the Trial Court ought to have pronounced the 4 judgment on the date fixed for it unless due to unavoidable reasons beyond the control of the court, adjournment became necessary for re-fixing the date for judgment. 5. But in the instant case, it appears from the submission made by the petitioners counsel that the learned Judge has gone on posting the case for judgment time and again and because of the delay in pronouncing the judgment it has given rise to the respondent filing application after application for production of documents and this has resulted in the case again being taken back to the stage of further evidence on the part of the complainant. 6. The learned Trial Judge ought to have kept in view all these factors and could not have delayed or postponed the delivery of judgment. It is hoped that the learned Trial Judge a1 take note of the above observations and will not further delay in pronouncing 9: t o a: Os I-’. 9 •0 tI §5 Vi a: a0 II’ ‘S go Wa. We be Os S• (D C, S. ‘ & Os 1 0 0