Remanded

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.L v. Sethu Bai and Another

Kerala HC14 Mar 2013CRL.A/1372/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case (N.I. Act). The court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the case to the Magistrate, granting the complainant one more opportunity to prove his case on the condition that he deposits a specified fee in the trial court within a stipulated time and attends the recall hearing.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; acquittal order set aside; case remanded to Magistrate with condition to deposit fee and appear for retrial.

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.L Vs Sethu Bai and… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/23RD PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1372 of 2009 (B)

¶6

Crl.L.P..469/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-07-2009

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC.286/2007 of J.M.F.C.-III, KOTTARAKARA DATED 04-03-2009

¶8

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO.PVT LTD., ALPHONSA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTARAKKARA REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL CLERK, S.PRADEEP, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MOOLATHARA THOPPIL, KANTRAMKANI, MUNDRO ISLAND.P.O., KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BABU

¶11

SMT.N.SUDHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶13

SETHU BAI, CHARUVILA, THAZHATHIL, MATHOOR, KUDAVATTOOR.

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Crl.A.No.1372 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2013

¶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 04/03/2009 in C.C.No.286 of 2007 of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottarakara by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. As I am proposed to dispose of this appeal at this admission stage itself and considering the safe-guard proposed to be incorporated in the judgment in favour of the respondent/ accused, according to me, the notice to the respondent can be dispensed with.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted that, on the date of the impugned

¶24

Crl.A.No.1372/2009

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

order, the complainant was present and there was no willful latches or negligence on the part of the complainant in adducing evidence. According to the learned counsel, during the trial of the case, the accused approached the complainant and requested for settlement paying the amount in court. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, when the complaint was filed along with the same the original cheque was produced but it was returned. So, according to the learned counsel the evidence was not adduced in the above factual background and there was no willful latches or negligence and the learned counsel further submits that considering the amount involved in the cheque, one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter.

¶27

I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶28

Though the learned counsel submitted certain reasons for not adducing evidence, according to me, the same are not substantiated before this Court by

¶29

Crl.A.No.1372/2009

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

producing any material or evidence. However, it is a fact that the cheque in question covers an amount of `49,075/and though the court has taken cognizance, there is no decision on merit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, according to me, one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter by adducing evidence but such further opportunity can be given only on terms.

¶32

In the result, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order dated 04/03/2009 of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottarakara in C.C.No.286 of 2007 on condition that the appellant/complainant deposits a sum of 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) in the trial court on or before **16/04/2013** . Accordingly, the appellant/ complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on **16/04/2013** 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 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only)

¶33

Crl.A.No.1372/2009

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

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 the same on merit. Out of the sum of 1,500/-, 1,000/shall be given to the accused and the remaining `500/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 2007.

¶36

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶37

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶38

skj

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.L v. Sethu Bai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.L v. Sethu Bai and Another

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

P.P.Firoz Baboo Vs Dr.P.P.Balakrishnan

Dharmarthadayini Sabha Vs K.Mancharan & Othrs.

Madhusoodhanan Vs State of Kerala

Murali Vs State of Kerala

V.Prakashan Vs Cyril Britto

K.Kunnammed Vs K.Abubacker