The appellant complained of a cheque dishonour. The Magistrate dismissed his complaint for non-appearance. This Criminal Appeal allowed him to prosecute the case afresh, directing the Magistrate to reconsider the matter.
Warning the appellant to appear before the Magistrate; directing the Magistrate to dispose of the Criminal Case afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930
CRL.A.No. 380 of 2008()
----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.65/2008 Dated 22/01/2008 CC.199/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT:
N.T.JOY, S/O.THOMAS, NEDUMTHULLLI HOUSE, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, THURAVOOR, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN
RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J
Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2008
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequent to his non appearance before the learned Magistrate on 06.10.07, the complaint filed by him against the accused was dismissed invoking the powers under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The previous date of posting was on 09.08.07. There was a direction by the learned Magistrate to the complainant to comply with certain directions.
Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2008 2
petitioner, it is submitted. On 06.10.07, the petitioner and his counsel were laid up and that is the reason why the petitioner was unable to appear before the learned Magistrate or get a representation made. It is prayed that under any circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be given a further opportunity to prosecute his complaint.
satisfied that notwithstanding the lapse that took place on 06.10.07, the petitioner is entitled to be given a further opportunity to prosecute his case.
b) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of C.C.No.199 of 2006 afresh in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complainant who failed to appear before the Magistrate is entitled to a second chance to prosecute the case.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the complaint under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N.T.Joy
State of Kerala
R.Basant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
