Disposed

Npr Finance Ltd. v. Bindu.K.S

Kerala HC5 Sept 2012CRL.A/1188/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal appeal against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The court set aside the acquittal order and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of rupees 2,500/- to allow the trial court to restore the complaint and proceed with the trial on merit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of setting aside the acquittal order on condition that appellant deposits ₹2,500/-; complaint to be restored and trial proceeds on merit.

Npr Finance Ltd. Vs Bindu.K.S — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/14TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1188 of 2009 ( )

¶6

-------------------------CC.684/2004 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (E&O), ERNAKULAM.

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

N.P.R. FINANCE LTD., 41/1787, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, E. NARAYANAN, S/O.EASWARAN, AGED 35, 47/1987, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:

¶11

1. BINDU K.S., W/O.S. SUDHI, 13/692, SUDHEENTHRALAYAM, PEROOR, ETTUMANNOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Crl.A.No.1188 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 05^th day of September, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the appellant as it is aggrieved by the order dated 27/05/2009 in C.C.No.684 of 2004 of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Though notice is served on the respondent, nobody has turned up and chosen to resist the appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of `.2,89,200/- and the impugned order was passed after closing the evidence of the complainant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the presence of the accused has

¶24

Crl.A.No.1188/2009

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

been procured during the 313 proceedings by issuing NBW. Thus according to the counsel the order issued by the trial court is not legally and factually sustainable. It is the further submission of the counsel that one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit.

¶27

Though the counsel for the complainant challenged the observation and the findings of the learned Magistrate that contained in the impugned order, no material or evidence is produced. From the facts stated in the appeal memorandum it appears that the complainant has been prosecuting the matter effectively. As the impugned order is cryptic in nature, this Court is not in a position to ascertain whether the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and whether he is of the opinion that the complainant is regularly absent. However, it is relevant to note that, though the court has already taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the basis of the complaint preferred by the appellant connected with the

¶28

Crl.A.No.1188/2009

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

dishonour of cheque for an amount of `2,89,200/-, there is no decision on merit. Therefore, according to me, it is just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the complainant and to have a decision on merit but subject to terms.

¶31

In the result, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order dated 27/05/2009 of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam in C.C.No.684 of 2004 on condition that the appellant/complainant deposits a sum of 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) in the trial court on or before 05/10/2012. Accordingly, the appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on **05/10/2012** on which date, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and on his satisfaction that the appellant/complainant deposits a sum of .2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) in the court below as directed above, he is further directed to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of

¶32

Crl.A.No.1188/2009

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

the same on merit. Out of the sum of .2,500/-, .1,500/shall be given to the accused and the remaining `.1,000/shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. It is made clear that if there is any failure on the part of the appellant either in depositing the amount mentioned above within the time or in appearing before the court below on the date fixed for his appearance, this order will stand vacated and consequently, the above appeal will stand dismissed. In case the appellant/complainant complies with the above direction and co-operates with the inquiry and trial of the case, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible as the case pertains to the year 2004.

¶35

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶36

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶37

skj

Npr Finance Ltd. v. Bindu.K.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Npr Finance Ltd. v. Bindu.K.S

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

C.v.Padmakumar Vs the State of Kerala

George Vs Pothan Scariah

Najeeb Rawther Vs Binu.T.S.& Another

Sivan,S/O.Velyaudhan Vs State of Kerala

S.Jaganathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs Sasi