Allowed

Dilipkumar Milan Chand Jain v. P.G.Babu

Kerala HC21 Aug 2008CRL.A/407/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the learned Magistrate's order of acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. due to the complainant's failing to appear on the correct date caused by counsel error. The court restored the complaint under Section 138 NI Act to the file for further proceedings and fixed a new date for appearing before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Order of acquittal set aside; complaint restored to file; further proceedings directed to commence from 13.10.2008.

Dilipkumar Milan Chand Jain Vs P.G.Babu — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930

¶5

CRL.A.No. 407 of 2001()

¶6

----------------------CC. NO. 738/1999 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/ PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT:

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

DILIPKUMAR MILAN CHAND JAIN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. S. DILIPKUMAR, 19/21, 3RD AGIARY LANE (NASTA GALI), 3RD FLOOR, TAHER BUILDINGS, BOMBAY - 400 003, REP. BY HIS POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. MAHENDRA M. JAIN.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH.

¶11

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED:

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. P.G. BABU, PROPRIETOR, P.K. GOVINDAN COMPANY, KOMMADY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 007.

¶14

*ADDL.R2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 08/02/08 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 1214/08.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

V.GIRI, J.

¶20

CRL.A.No.407 of 2001 B

¶21

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2008.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The complainant, in C.C.No.738/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First ClassI, Alappuzha, which ended in the acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the appellant herein.

¶24

The complaint was instituted by the complainant on the allegation that the accused had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.72,000/-, which on presentation, was dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Statutory notice did not elicit positive response. Therefore, the complaint was instituted. The complaint was filed on 14.5.1999. The sworn statement of the complainant was taken on 11.8.1999. Apparently, on 2.9.2000, the case was called and it stood adjourned to 2.12.2000. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the counsel, who represented him before the court below, noted down the posting date as 12.12.2000. This resulted in there being no representation when the case was called on 2.12.2000 and on the said day, the

¶25

CRL.A.No.407 of 2001

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

learned magistrate proceeded to acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. There is no appearance for the accused before this court, in spite of service of notice.

¶28

Having perused the records and having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I am satisfied that the appellant must be given one more opportunity to prosecute the complaint.

¶29

In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. The learned magistrate shall proceed further with C.C.NO.738/99. The appellant shall appear before the court below on 13.10.2008.

¶30

Taking note of the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 1999, the records shall be transmitted to the court below without further delay.

Sd/- (V.GIRI)

sk/

//true copy//

P.S. To Judge

Dilipkumar Milan Chand Jain v. P.G.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilipkumar Milan Chand Jain v. P.G.Babu

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.Eminent Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs T.a.Koyakutty

James Vs Raja Mohanan Nair

Xavier Vs State

M/S.Eminent Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs P.a.Koyakutty

V.A. Nazir Vs T.V. Bijoy

Easwaran Namboothiri Vs the Kairali Marketing & Processibng