Allowed

Jose Stephen v. Nazeema Hameed

Kerala HC1 Sept 2008CRL.A/887/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal concerns an acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 138 NI Act, allegedly procured due to a clerical error in the court's case posting date. The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, restored the complaint to the file, and restored the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. The lower court shall proceed with the complaint. Parties shall appear on 17.11.2008.

Jose Stephen Vs Nazeema Hameed — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930

¶4

CRL.A.No. 887 of 2005() ----------------------CC.2176/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM ....................

¶5

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶6

¶7

JOSE STEPHEN, KAVOLAND, SHAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶10

¶11

NAZEEMA HAMEED, W/O.HAMEED, PUTHEN PURAYIL, KAYAMKULAM.

¶12

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

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM FOR R1

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.GIRI, J.

¶17

==============

¶18

Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2005 ====================

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2008.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The complainant in C.C.No.2176/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam is the appellant herein. The calendar case arises out of a complaint, alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, the case was posted to 5.2.2005 and next posting date was on 16.2.2005, which was wrongly noted by the advocate clerk as 16.3.2005. Hence the complainant and his counsel could not appear before the court on 16.2.2005 and this lead to the acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.

¶22

I have heard the counsel.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

¶24

view that the complainant is entitled to another chance to prosecute the complaint.

¶25

¶26

Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2005

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. The court below shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the court below on 17.11.2008.

¶28

V.GIRI, JUDGE

¶29

bkn/-

Jose Stephen v. Nazeema Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Stephen v. Nazeema Hameed

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.Semic Engineers and Contractors Vs Suhara Hyder

V. Asokan Vs P. Jayarajan

Nazirudeen Vs a. Shamsudeen

P.N.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs M/S.Anupam Textiles

Sunil Nath Vs K.G.Haridas

Vasumathi Vs Mani C.Kappan