Latest news with #Section138
Time of India
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
National Lok Adalat in Gadchiroli settles cases, recovers Rs 97.52 lakh
Gadchiroli : The National Lok Adalat , conducted in Gadchiroli district and taluka courts on Saturday, resolved 122 cases and recovered nearly Rs 1 under the supervision of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Delhi, and the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority , following Mumbai High Court guidelines, the initiative secured Rs 97,52, dedicated panels at the NLA addressed both ongoing and pre-litigation matters on proceedings encompassed various disputes, including criminal compoundable offences, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, family disputes, motor accident claims, bank recoveries, electricity arrears, property and water tax issues with gram panchayats, consumer complaints, and traffic chalans. Additionally, 54 minor criminal cases reached resolution through plea bargaining . At panel No. 2, a significant achievement occurred when a married couple agreed to reconcile. The organisers celebrated their decision with a formal ceremony, presenting them with a saree and shawl to mark their renewed Legal Services Authority chairman and Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinayak Joshi supervised the event, with Judge RR Patil as officers managed the proceedings: PR Sitre led panel No. Operation Sindoor Amid flare-up hours after thaw, officials say things will settle down with time Ceasefire on, but pressure stays: Key decisions by India against Pak that still stand 'Will work with India & Pakistan to seek solution on Kashmir': Trump 1, SP Sadafale headed panel No. 2, and SB Vijaykar directed panel No 3. VR Malode's court handled minor criminal cases. Panel members Manohar Heppat, Devaji Bavne, and Archana Chaudhary assisted in reaching Gadchiroli District Bar Association, under president Kishore Akhade, along with senior advocates, legal professionals, court personnel, and Legal Services Authority officials, contributed to the programme's success through their coordinated initiative reduced court backlogs whilst providing quick resolutions, recovering outstanding dues, and promoting community harmony through mediated agreements. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Mother's Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Time of India
Karnataka high court rejects single trial plea for separate cheque bounce cases by different complainants
Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court held that the same accused cannot demand a single trial for two separate complaints filed by different complainants under distinct circumstances. "A complainant is the master of his prosecution. His interests and rights also have to be protected," Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar declared whilst rejecting a petition from Puttanagouda, a farmer from Kadashettihalli village in Haveri district's Hanagal taluk. Two cheque bounce cases were registered against Puttanagouda in 2021, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal. The complaints were separately filed by Kubergouda and Channabasappa. Puttanagouda sought a single trial, citing Sections 219 and 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code , arguing that the alleged offences occurred within a year. The magistrate rejected this request, citing different circumstances. The sessions court subsequently dismissed his appeal on November 7, 2022. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru In his high court petition challenging the sessions court order, Puttanagouda contended that Section 219 of CrPC allows for a single trial of up to three similar offences committed within twelve months, regardless of whether they involve the same complainant. Justice Amarannavar disagreed, clarifying that Section 219 CrPC does not permit joint trials of separate Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cases filed by different complainants with distinct causes of action, despite having the same accused. The judge elaborated that Section 220 of CrPC also failed to support the petitioner's case. The court noted that separate examination of complainants, witnesses, and documents was necessary for each case, requiring individual evaluation of merits, thereby dismissing the petition.
