The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appeal visited for an order acquitting two accused persons. The appellant argued the proceedings were confused due to incorrect case citations, but the Court held the delay and confusion resulted from the complainant's negligence and false submissions.
The appeal was dismissed with no merit found by the Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/31ST SRAVANA 1934
CRL.A.No. 87 of 2009 (A)
CRLP.1356/2008 DATED 03-12-2008 ST.573/2004 of J.M.F.C.-II,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
BASHEER, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALI THAMPI, T.C 46/297, PALLI STREET, POONTHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANITHA
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE:
BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY – FOR R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.RIJA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y.-FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'CR'
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------------Crl.A.No.87 of 2009
-------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2012
JUDGMENT
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 he is aggrieved by the order dated 29/09/2004 in S.T.No.573 of 2004 of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
2
the complainant, dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and no payment was made in spite of a formal demand and thus, he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Thus, S.T.No.573 of 2004 was instituted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the further case of the complainant that he had also preferred another complaint against one Viswanathan connected with the dishonour of a cheque for `1,00,000/- and the said case was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram as S.T.No.585 of 2004 wherein cognizance was taken, which, on transfer, is re-numbered as S.T.No.267 of 2006 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
3
case numbers of those cases are interchanged. Thus, instead of giving case number as S.T.No.573 of 2004 in the case against the accused, namely Padmanabhan, case number S.T.No.585 of 2004 was given and therefore the address of the first respondent/accused remained as same, but when the summons were sent, the same have not gone against the real accused, viz., Viswanathan, but sent to Mr.Padmanabhan. It is the case of the appellant that the case against Viswanathan was settled out of court and therefore the appellant, who is the complainant in that case, did not intend to prosecute that matter. The appellant further says that since the amount was repaid by the said Viswanathan, the entry regarding the payment made by the said Viswanathan was recorded on the case file pertaining to S.T.No.573 of 2004 instead of S.T.No.585 of 2004. Therefore, when S.T.No.573 of 2004 was posted, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared. Consequently, the learned Magistrate issued the impugned order dated 29/09/2004 in S.T.No.573 of 2004 by which the accused
Crl.A.No.87/2009
4
Padmanabhan, the case against whom was not settled, is acquitted under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
5
the counsel for the appellant that since the case between the complainant and Viswanathan was settled out of court, the complainant did not appear in that case and consequently that accused was also acquitted under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. for which the appellant has no grievance. But, in the present case, the case against the accused Padmanabhan, is not settled, but finally the impugned order was issued acquitting Mr.Padmanabhan, who is the accused indebted to the appellant for an amount of `1,50,000/-. Therefore, the counsel requests for one more opportunity in favour of the appellant to prosecute the matter on merit in S.T.No.573/2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
6
complainant, the appellant herein, the learned Magistrate issued the order acquitting him. According to the learned counsel, the entire confusion was created by the appellant and his counsel and the court below was constrained to continue the illegal and improper proceedings till the disposal of that case. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the case was settled between the complainant and the respondent and the present appeal is filed on an experimental basis to make an unlawful enrichment for the appellant.
Thiruvananthapuram.
7
Crl.A.No.87/2009
.1,50,000/- whereas it is further seen that the very same complainant has filed another complaint i.e., C.M.P.No.390 of 2003 in the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram against one Viswanathan wherein the cheque was for an amount of 1,00,000/- based upon which S.T.No.585 of 2004 was instituted and the said case, was subsequently, made over to the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First ClassVIII, Thiruvananthapuram wherein the case is renumbered as S.T.No.267 of 2006.Crl.A.No.87/2009
8
which I shall refer now. On a perusal of the proceedings of the court below in S.T.No.267 of 2006, it appears that as per the proceedings dated 29/04/2006 of the court below, it is recorded that there is a submission on behalf of the complainant, who was absent, that there is a mistake in the case record forwarded. But, subsequently, almost on all the posting dates the complainant was absent. From the proceedings dated 23/01/2008 it is seen that the learned Magistrate has recorded, on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant that, the proceedings are stayed and directed to produce the stay order. Finally as per the endorsement dated 19/06/2008 it is recorded “19/06/2008 – complainant absent. Represented.” Complainant's counsel submitted that summons was served on Padmanabhan, not on the accused in this case who also took bail in this case. Adjourned on request of the counsel for the complainant.” By the proceedings dated 29/12/2008 it is seen recorded that “complainant represented. File affidavit stating the present
9
Crl.A.No.87/2009
stage of revision and produce stay order if any. On 03/01/2009, it was recorded that complainant represented by counsel. Affidavit file. Called on 19/12/2009. Again on 25/01/2010 it is seen recorded that “complainant and accused absent. No representation for both sides. For production of stay order (last chance) complainant must be present without failure on 25/02/2010. It is on 25/02/2010, the learned Magistrate passed final order in S.T.No.267 of 2006. [Emphasis supplied]
recorded that complainant was absent and no
Crl.A.No.87/2009
10
representation for the complainant, dismissed the complaint under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. and ordered to recall steps, if any, pending against the accused. [Emphasis supplied]. Against the above observation and findings of the court below, the contention of the appellant is that the failure in appearance was due to the mistake occured in the office of the counsel in the trial court. According to me, the mere absence of the complainant or his counsel, was not the sole reason for the observation and findings of the court below, but the submission made by the counsel for the complainant in the trial court on 31/08/2004 would have been considered by the learned Magistrate, since the Magistrate was informed through a formal submission that the matter was settled. Now the complainant says that the said submission was not correct.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
11
of dispute and acquitting accused under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. due to the consequent absence of the complainant appeals are being filed and this Court is not in a position to adjudicate such issue in the absence of any material or evidence. Therefore, in case, the complainant is not invoking Section 257 of Cr.P.C. and still making submission about the settlement of the dispute, which is the subject matter of the complaint, following the High Court Circular 28/68 vide No.D1-27739/68, dated 4-10-1968 which reads,
“The High Court is of the view, for obvious reasons, that such controversies should be avoided. And it feels that this can be achieved if the Presiding officer gets counsel making a concession on a point canvassed by the pleadings or the memorandum of appeal to record the concession either in the issue paper or in the memorandum or on a separate paper under his signature. This record must be initialled and dated by the presiding officer and must be available among the case records.”
the Magistrate shall insist them to file a memo, so that they cannot disown their submission in the trial court and preclude them from taking contentions against the observation and finding of the learned Magistrate of the trial court on such submission if the same is supported by a document.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
12
Crl.A.No.87/2009
13
confusion was created due to the improper, irregular and irresponsible approach in prosecuting the matters for which the complainant as well as his counsel in the trial court alone were responsible. Further, it is relevant to note that the impugned order in the present case was passed as early as on 29/09/2004. From the 'B' diary proceedings of the trial court in S.T.No.267 of 2006 (S.T.No.585 of 2004-old number) it can be seen that the so-called mistakes, came to the knowledge of the complainant evidently on 29/4/2006, the date on which on behalf of the complainant representation was made about the mistake in the record, during the pendency of the matter in the trial court in S.T.No.267 of 2006. If there was any bonafide and proper prosecution in S.T.No.573 of 2004, the said mistake should have been noticed by the complainant or his counsel on 29/09/2004, the date on which the impugned order was passed. In S.T.No.267 of 2006, it can be seen that after the filing of the complaint on 08/01/2003, though the above case was posted on 8 days that on 15/03/2003, 14/07/2003,
Crl.A.No.87/2009
14
16/02/2005 and 01/08/2005, the complainant was not present in person on all those dates. It was on 16/08/2005 the accused surrendered and he was bailed out and his plea was recorded. Of course, the proceedings of the court below on the above date are not expected to be within the knowledge of the complainant since the case was advanced from 01/02/2006, at the instance of the accused, as coercive steps were pending against him. It appears that on 25/02/2006 though the complainant was present, the accused did not appear and therefore bailable warrant was issued. But on the subsequent date i.e., on 21/04/2006 though the accused was present, the complainant was absent. If the allegation of the complainant is true and had the complainant been present on that day, i.e., on 21/04/2006, he could have realised the mistake occurred and the consequent appearance of wrong person, namely, Padmanabhan, instead of Viswanathan could have been avoided and the court could have set the proceedings in
Crl.A.No.87/2009
15
correct way by the assistance of the complainant or his counsel. On the subsequent posting date, i.e., on 26/04/2006 also the complainant was absent. Thus it was, on 29/04/2006, it is seen submitted on behalf of the complainant that there was a mistake in the record and suffice to say, on that day also the complainant was absent.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
16
and in case of absence of parties, either the complainant or the accused, the further facts whether they are represented by their respective counsel or not or appropriate application are made or not. The materials and data with respect to the above facts are absolutely relevant and material to dispose of such appeals guided by the positions of law settled through the authorities in this regard. Invariably, all the trial courts are making such endorsements in the proceeding sheets of the case. But in several cases, such facts are not being recorded scrupulously, as in the present case. Therefore, it is advisable and inevitable for the trial court to record in the “B” diary proceedings about those facts in any abbreviated forms so as to enable the appellate court to appreciate those facts correctly and properly.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
17
19/12/2004, 24/01/2005, 16/02/2005 and on 01/08/2005. Thus, it is relevant to note that after 08.01.2003, though there were eight effective postings, the complainant did not appear in person on any of the above dates. In S.T.No.267 of 2006, especially in the light of the datas furnished above, it can be seen that on several occasions, both the complainant and accused and their counsel were absent and the learned Magistrate was forced to adjourn the case suomotu. Therefore, in S.T.No.267/2006, it can be seen that had the complainant been present in person in the court on the posting dates of the case, at least from 15.3.2003 till 1.8.2005, he could have realised the mistake, on any of such dates and the proceedings need not be lagged up to 29.4.2006, since during the roll call, the case is being taken by calling the names of the parties to the complaint, i.e., the name of the complainant as well as the accused. Therefore, if the complainant was present physically, he could have realised the fact that the name of the accused called was not correct.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
18
“18. Reading the Section in its entirety would reveal that two constraints are imposed on the Court for exercising the power under the Section. First is, if the Court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day, the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day the Court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case
Crl.A.No.87/2009
19
being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the Court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But, if the presence of the complainant on that day was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section. The discretion must, therefore, be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.”
(underline supplied)
From the above decisions, it can be seen that those decisions are mainly dealing with the powers of the Magistrate Court under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and certain guidelines are laid down as to how and when such discretionary powers can be exercised. Suffice to say, those decisions are not giving any privilege for the complainant to keep away from the court proceedings, after throwing a complaint in a court of law or restrict the personal appearance of the complainant on particular stage or for any particular purpose. The complainant, who is bona fide, regular and proper in prosecuting the matter, is expected to be present in the court or at least to contact his counsel on
Crl.A.No.87/2009
20
every posting dates and to give him proper and timely instructions, which are essential for the smooth progress of the trial of the case and also for the smooth functioning of the court. It will be beneficial to the Advocates in all respect and they can make appropriate submissions before the court on the basis of the fresh instruction so received from their clients. It is not uncommon that orders are being passed under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. solely for the absence of timely instruction from the part of the complainant to his counsel and the consequent nonappearance of the counsel.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
21
the part of the complainant as well as his counsel, taking note of the exact case number assigned and also while furnishing the address for the summons to be served on the accused. The said mistake could have been rectified, had the complainant been present on any of the dates mentioned earlier. Because of the lapse on the part of the complainant as well as his counsel, the trial court has inadvertently proceeded with an irregular, improper and illegal proceedings and hence, it is for the complainant to face all the consequences thereon. Therefore, according to me, while the trial court has to scrupulously follow the guidelines and the dictum laid down in the decisions cited supra, it is for the complainant and his counsel to cooperate with the inquiry and trial and to see that when the case is called, proper assistance, in accordance with demand of the stage of the inquiry or trial is extended to the court towards the progress of the inquiry or trial as the case may be and for the smooth functioning of the court. Otherwise, the trial court would not be in a position to
Crl.A.No.87/2009
22
discharge its responsibilities in the dispensation of criminal justice, especially in view of huge arrears of criminal cases, more particularly heaping of cases connected with the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
23
when the case was taken subsequently on 19/06/2008, the complainant was absent and it is recorded that “complainant counsel submitted that summons was served on Padmanabhan, not on accused. In this case, who also took bail in this case. Adjourned on request of counsel for complainant. Call on 06/09/2008”. On 28/10/2008 the complainant was absent and hence adjourned the case and posted on 29/12/2008 as last chance. It appears that on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant on 29/12/2008 before the trial court, the learned Magistrate has recorded that “complainant represented, file affidavit stating the present stage of revision and produce stay order if any. 03/01/2009”. On the next posting date of the case, i.e., on 03/01/2009 the complainant is not seen physically present. On 27/04/2009 the complainant and counsel were absent. On 20/07/2009 it is recorded that the “complainant and counsel absent. The stay order not produced”. Again when the case was taken on 25/01/2010 the complainant and accused were absent
Crl.A.No.87/2009
24
and there was no representation for both the sides. It is further recorded on 25/01/2010 as, “for production of stay order (last chance) complainant must be present without failure. 25/02/2010. On 25/02/2010 the learned Magistrate issued the following order; “complainant and accused absent. No representation for both sides. Complainant was given specific direction for appearance before court today. No stay order received by this Court so far. As the complainant is not present, the accused is acquitted under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C”. [Emphasis supplied]
Crl.A.No.87/2009
25
passed by this Court against any proceedings of the trial court either in S.T.No.267 of 2006 or in S.T.No.573 of 2004.
Therefore the submission made on behalf of the complainant in the trial court on 23/01/2008 was absolutely incorrect and false. Thus in S.T.No.267 of 2006, right from 29/04/2006 onwards, the very same complainant and his counsel, were protracting the matter in the trial court. It is also relevant to note that even after the representation made on behalf of the complainant on 19/06/2008 in S.T.No.267 of 2006, the case was being adjourned at the instance of the complainant and his counsel for the reason best known to them.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
26
Suffice to say, no legal step has also been taken by the complainant in S.T.No.267 of 2006, against the proceedings therein, even after his knowledge, at least from the stage at which he came to the know about the so-called mistake about the case records, as recorded on 29/04/2006, in the above case i.e., S.T.No.267 of 2006 and to put an end to the improper and illegal proceedings, which was pending in the trial court, because of the mischief created by them, and for its procedural and legal quietus.
Crl.A.No.87/2009
27
proceedings in S.T.No.267 of 2006 have been stayed by this Court. It is also crystal clear from the above facts and circumstances that though the complainant and his counsel have got ample opportunities to cure the mistake/defect, the said opportunities were not availed of in time due to the lethargic and culpable negligence of the complainant and his counsel. Therefore, any interference with the impugned order, in the given facts and circumstances of the case will amount to a wrong message to the litigant public and to the judicial system, which will accelerate unhealthy practice and procedure in the trial court as occurred in the present case. As there is no provision to award cost, I am not making any order to that effect.
In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
skj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can challenge the acquittal of the accused by contending that the trial proceeded against the wrong defendant due to a clerical mistake in case numbers.
Whether the absence of the complainant and counsel at trial proceedings vitiates the order passed under Section 256(1) CrPC.
Whether the complainant's own negligence and false submissions regarding settlement and stay orders justify leaving the acquittal order undisturbed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of PoliceReferred¶85
[2003(1) KLT 339]
Associated Cement Co.Ltd. v. KeshvanandExplained¶87
[1998 Crl.L.J.856]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
BASHEER
PADMANABHAN.N
STATE OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court