Allowed

M/S.Sarath Enterprises v. K.G.Shaji

Kerala HC6 Nov 2008CRL.A/756/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, holding that the lower court was not justified in invoking Section 256 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint due to the accused's absence and order the impugned acquittal was set aside, with proceedings to continue.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of acquittal is set aside and the appellant is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 12/12/2008 to continue proceedings.

M/S.Sarath Enterprises Vs K.G.Shaji — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶4

CRL.A.No. 756 of 2002()

¶5

----------------------CC.244/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶7

¶8

M/S.SARATH ENTERPRISES, DOOR NO.716/1, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM, A PROPRIETORY CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY HOLDER OF POWER OF ATTORNEY A.SASIKUMAR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ----------------------

¶11

K.G.SHAJI, S/O. GANGADHARAN, KOONLYARA, VEMBALLOOR, TRICHUR.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.A.No.756 of 2002

¶15

Dated this the 6^th day of November 2008

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The appellant is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint was filed on 07/04/2001. It underwent nine adjournments. Cognizance was taken; but the accused had not entered appearance despite the issue of non-bailable warrant against the accused on several occasions. On 26/3/2002, it was directed that the complainant must be present personally and an affidavit should be filed. On that day, the affidavit was not filed. Consequently on the next date of posting, the learned Magistrate invoked the jurisdiction under Section 256 Cr.P.C to dismiss the complaint and acquitted the accused. I find no such contumacious latches to justify the the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions at later stages. of that complaint.

¶18

Notice has been served on the respondent. There is no appearance. A copy of the order sheet has been placed

¶19

Crl.A.No.756/02

¶20

¶21

before me. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case that the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 256 Cr.P.C to dismiss the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner was not justified.

¶22

This appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of acquittal is set aside. The appellant must appear before the learned Magistrate on 12/12/2008 to continue with the proceedings.

¶23

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.A.No.756/02 3

Crl.A.No.756/02 4

R.BASANT, J

C.R.M.C.No.

ORDER

DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006

M/S.Sarath Enterprises v. K.G.Shaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sarath Enterprises v. K.G.Shaji

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

Jibi Vahid Vs the State of Kerala

Veenus Vs State of Kerala

Saleem Mangalassery Vs State of Kerala

Jyothi Vs Director General of Police,Thiruvanantha

Arul Das Vs State of Kerala

Johny Thomas Vs State of Kerala