Dismissed

M/S. Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits (P) Ltd. v. Prakashan N.K.

Kerala HC19 Sept 2012Crl.L.P./530/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Crl.L.P., the petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no arguable case existed as the complainant was absent on the last adjourned date.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. was declined and the petition was dismissed.

M/S. Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits (P) Ltd. Vs Prakashan… — 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 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.L.P..No. 530 of 2012

¶6

ST.249/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I, PERAMBRA

¶7

PETITIONER /COMPLAINANT:

¶8

M/S. KALPETTA JANAKSHEMA MARUTHI CHITS (P) LTD. SARALA COMPLEX,VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONALMANAGER,

¶9

SRI.M.MADHUSUDHANAN.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

PRAKASHAN. N.K.

¶13

S/O.KUMARAN,NANGICHTHTHAZHAKUNIYIL,KALAPATHUR, PIN-673524.

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN,J.

¶18

Crl.L.P.No.530 of 2012

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the petitioner herein, who seeks special leave under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) to file an appeal against the order of the trial court by which the learned Magistrate in his complaint, acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of `5,000/- and there is no negligence from the part of the petitioner in appearing before the trial court and adducing evidence and thus the counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get one more opportunity to prosecute the matter in case consideration of an appeal on merit and hence the petitioner may be granted leave as prayed for.

¶23

CRL.L.P.No.530 of 2012

¶24

:-2-:

¶25

I am unable to sustain the contention of the learned

¶26

counsel, since from the impugned order, which is sought to be challenged, it is crystal clear that previous to the date of the order sought to be impugned, the petitioner was given five chances to adduce evidence and it was posted as last chance on the date of impugned order. On that day also the complainant/petitioner was absent. The case pertains to the year 2009. Under the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has no arguable case in support of his challenge against the order sought to be impugned. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get leave as sought for, especially when I find no illegality with the order sought to be impugned.

¶27

In the result, this petition is dismissed declining the leave sought for.

¶28

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.

¶29

skj

M/S. Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits (P) Ltd. v. Prakashan N.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits (P) Ltd. v. Prakashan N.K.

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

Chithranjan Vs Jayarajan

The Kottayam Urban Welfare Co-Operative Society Vs Saju.P.S

T.J.Varghese Vs Fr.James Vamattam

Sunny John @ Raju Vs Rajendra Babu @ Rajendran

M.M.Rasheed Vs Faisal & Another

Abdul Manof Vs State of Kerala