Allowed

M/S.Century Plastic & Chemicals v. M/S.Vijaya Enterprises

Kerala HC9 Jun 2011CRL.A/917/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an acquittal under Section 256(1) of the CrPC, following an order passed when the court was posted for evidence without prior notice to the prosecution. Relied on P.V. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, the court held the order illegal and remanded the case for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of acquittal is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal.

M/S.Century Plastic & Chemicals Vs M/S.Vijaya Enterprises — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRL.A.No. 917 of 2011() ----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN CC.1414/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------

¶3

M/S. CENTURY PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS, PB NO.3696, MADEENA MASJID SHOPPING COMPLEX, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.P.KAMALUDHEEN

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): --------------1. M/S.VIJAYA ENTERPRISES, VIJAYA BUILDING, NEAR SHENOYS JUNCTION, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-C.F.RAJU.

¶6

MRS. ROSA FRANCIS, W/O LATE C.A.FRANCIS, PARTNER, M/S.VIJAYA ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT CHUNGATH HOUSE, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI-2

¶7

MR.C.F RAJU, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. VIJAYA ENTERPRISES, NEAR SHENOYS JUNCTION, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35.

¶8

MRS. TESSY JOHNSON, W/O CF JOHNSON, PARTNER, M/S. VIJAYA ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT CHUNGATH HOUSE, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI-2.

¶9

JOHNSON, S/O. FRANCIS, MMANAGER, M/S. VIJAYA ENTERPRISES, NEAR SHENOYS JUNCTION, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35.

¶10

MR.GEORGE DAVISI, S/OK.L. DEVASSIYA, AUTHORISEDSIGNATORY OF M/S VIJAYA ENTERPRISES, NOW AT ROSE ENTERPRISES, DOOR NO.XLIV/126, KHALIFA BUILDINGS, SRM ROAD, KOCHI-18.

¶11

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

¶12

ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP FOR R6 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sou.

¶15

K. HEMA, J

¶16

Crl.Appeal.No.917 OF 2011 ----------------------------------Dated 9^th June, 2011

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This appeal arises from an order of acquittal passed under section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short).

¶19

Appellant filed a complaint against respondents 1 to 6 alleging offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This complaint is filed as early as on 2003. After the appearance of accused and recording plea, case was posted for evidence to different dates. On one such day, on 23.2.2006 complainant was absent and accused were acquitted under section 256(1) of the Code.

¶20

Notice was served to respondent 1 to 6 on criminal leave petition. But Respondents 1 to 5 did not enter appearance in the petition for condonation of delay. Heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent no.6.

¶21

On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that impugned order is unsustainable, since it is illegal in the light of the decision reported in 2010 (4) KLT 697 P.V. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala

¶22

Crl.A. No.917/11

¶23

¶24

and another, as the order of acquittal was passed on the date on which case was posted for evidence. This appeal was filed as early las in 2006 with a petition to condone delay. There is no justification in keeping this petition pending any further. I am satisfied that impugned order ipso facto illegal. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.

¶25

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶26

The order under challenge is set aside.

¶27

The case is remanded to trial court for fresh consideration and disposal, in accordance with law.

¶28

Trial court shall issue notice to counsel appearing for respondent 1 to 6 before trial court, and also complainant before trial court and dispose of the case, in accordance with law.

¶29

This appeal is allowed.

¶30

Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE.

¶31

Sou.

¶32

//True Copy //

¶33

P.A. to Judge.

M/S.Century Plastic & Chemicals v. M/S.Vijaya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Century Plastic & Chemicals v. M/S.Vijaya Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjachan Vs State of Kerala

Prakasan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Ibrahim

P.T.George Vs Jimmy Joshy

N.Divakara Kurup Vs Chandrika and Another

K.C.Saithalavi Haji Vs State of Kerala