Allowed

T.J.Thomas v. Pradeepkumar

Kerala HC4 Sept 2008CRL.A/241/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The trial court acquitted the accused as the complainant failed to appear without a valid medical certificate. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the complaint to the file for further proceedings due to lack of persistent default by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Order of acquittal set aside and complaint restored to file for further proceedings.

T.J.Thomas Vs Pradeepkumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

CRL.A.No. 241 of 2007()

¶6

----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRLP.612/2006 Dated 20/11/2006 CC.128/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

T.J.THOMAS, S/O.THARAYIL OUSEPH, NELLUVAI P.O., ERUMAPETTY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE

¶12

¶13

PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KANAKALATH HOUSE, MURINGATHERY, P.O.NELLUVAI, THRISSUR DIST.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI, J

¶19

Crl.A.241/2007

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The complainant in C.C.No.128/2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, is the appellant herein. The calender case arose out of a complaint alleging that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, he was present on most of the days. But on 26.8.2006, he could not appear before the Court below, since he was laid up due to illness. He had instructed the counsel to seek an exemption from his appearance. On the ground that no medical certificate was produced by the complainant and the reason for his non appearance did not prima facie appear to be genuine, the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. Same has been challenged in this appeal.

¶23

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶24

having found that there was no persistent default on the

¶25

Crl.A.241/2007

¶26

¶27

part of the complainant, I am of the view that the complainant is entitled to another chance to prosecute the complaint.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order of acquittal is set aside and the complaint is restored to file. The Court below shall further proceed with C.C.No.128/2005, in accordance with law.

¶29

Parties shall appear before the Court below on 24.11.2008.

¶30

V.GIRI, Judge

¶31

mrcs

T.J.Thomas v. Pradeepkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.J.Thomas v. Pradeepkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Kasargod Self Employees Financing Vs State of Kerala

Kasinathan Vs the Circle Inspector

Dr.M.K.Muneer,Chairman,Indiavision Satel Vs State of Kerala

Balachandran Nair Vs Purushothaman and Another

K.Kunhiraman Vs C.P.Raveendran

T.J.Thomas Vs P.a.Jayanthi & Another