IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22’’ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AN AND BYRAREDI)Y CRIMINAL PETITION No.7278/2010 BETWEEN: Shivakurnar, S/o Sangappa Malaghan, Managing Director. Nil/s Mahalaxmi Motors, Mudhol. Age: about 48 years, ()cc: Business. R/o Mudhol, Dist: Bagalkot. Petitioner (By Shri V. P. Kulkarni, Advocate) AND: Prabhakar, Sf’o Balasaheb Desai. 0cc: Agriculture. R/o Katakol. Tq:Jamakhandi. Dist: Bagalkot. Respondent (By Sri.H. M. Dharigond. Adv.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal JMFC, Mudhol. in C.C.No.749/2007 dated 18.1.2010. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the Complainant before the Court of the learned Magistrate. having alleged offence punishable under Section 1 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, The same was contested by the respondent and during the trial, the petitioner had made an application to examine the Partner o[the petitioner-Firm. on having realised that the evidence of the power ol attorney holder of the Partner may not be adequate. The Court below had rejected the application. on the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to tender the e idence through the witness sought to be examined, to fill up the lacunae or other shortcomings in the evidence tendered. 3 3. The learned Counsel submitsthat, in respect of a similar application filed in another complaint, this Court had in Crl.P.7277/2010 by its order dated 19.11.2010 held, that in the light ofthe law laid down in Sivahamurthy Swami vs. Agodi Songanna, AIR 1969 Mysore 12. that even before recording the evidence the observation of the Court that it is intended to fill up lacunae, is improper reasoning and on that footing, has allowed the said petition filed earlier in a similar circumstance. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, by a parity of reasoning this Court ought to allow this petition at the very admission stage. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent would, however, submit that he requires time to veri& that the earlier petition and the present one arises out of the same set of circumstances. 3 4 b 5. It is to be noticed that it is indeed, the position that the earlier petition and the present petition are by the same petitioner. Only the earlier petition is filed in the name of the Firm whereas the present one is filed in the name ofthe Partner. Accordingly, in view of the opinion formed by this Court in the above criminal petition, this pethion is considered for final disposal at the stage of admission by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties 6. Accordingly. the petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The Court below is directed to permit the petitioner to adduce the evidence of the Partner of the Firm in accordance with law. sal SuW