Allowed

M/S.Gayathri Industrial Combines v. M/S.Navaneetham Enterprises

Kerala HC14 Aug 2013CRL.A/1447/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court of Kerala held that the complainant, a heart patient hospitalized and excused from absent on the hearing day, was entitled to another chance to prosecute the complaint, thereby setting aside the acquittal and restoring the case.

What did the court decide?

Order of acquittal set aside; complaint restored to the file of the Magistrate Court for further proceedings in accordance with law.

M/S.Gayathri Industrial Combines Vs M/S.Navaneetham… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1447 of 2008 ( )

¶6

(LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL GRANTED AS PER ORDER DTD.4.7.2008 IN Crl.L.P. 335/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 1917/2004 of J.M.F.C.-II, PALAKKAD DATED 23-02-2008

¶8

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

M/S.GAYATHRI INDUSTRIAL COMBINES, PANNIYAMPADAM, MUNDUR POST, PALAKKAD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.M.THOMAS

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 & STATE:

¶12

M/S.NAVANEETHAM ENTERPRISES, XII/99, JALEEL QUARTERS, TANUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 302.

¶13

P.M.MOHAMMED KASIM, S/O.ABDUL KADER, SHANTI BHAVAN, MEENANGADI P.O, PADINJAREKKARA KOTTAYI.

¶14

K.T.SATHEESH CHANDRAN, S/O.K.JANARDHANA MENON, GEETHA BHAVAN OZHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

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

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.VIJU THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶19

Crl.Appeal No.1447 Of 2008 ---------------------Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2013.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The complainant in S.T.No.1917/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Palakkad is the appellant. The complaint was instituted alleging that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There was posting of the case on 23.2.2008. On that day, the court below dismissed the complaint finding that

¶22

the complainant was absent. The very same complainant filed S.T.Nos.1970/2004 & 1919/2004 before the very same court. All the three cases were dismissed on the same day. It is submitted that the absence was due to the reason that the complainant who is a heart patient was admitted in the hospital due to heart problems on 23.2.2008 and therefore, he could not be present before the court below. It is also pointed out that an application

¶23

to excuse his absence for the day was filed as C.M.P.No.1156/2008 in S.T.No.1917/2004 as it was the leading case. The same was not allowed by the court below. It is

¶24

::2::

¶25

Crl.A.No.1447/2008

¶26

submitted that there was absolutely no willful latches or negligence on his part in appearing before the Magistrate Court. Finding that the complainant not being present either in person or by counsel, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the order passed by the court below, I am satisfied that the complainant is entitled to another chance to prosecute the complaint.

¶28

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside and the complaint is restored to file. The court below shall further proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

¶29

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶30

bkn/-

M/S.Gayathri Industrial Combines v. M/S.Navaneetham Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Gayathri Industrial Combines v. M/S.Navaneetham Enterprises

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

Kunjimoyin.v.G. Vs P.P.Moideen

Vinod Kumar P.S. Vs Domy K. Paul

Kozhikode Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Kozhikode Vs C.K.Ajayan

M/S.Gayathri Industrial Combines Vs M/S.Navaneetham Enterprises and Others

M/S.Gayathri Industrial Combines Vs M/S.Navaneetham Enterprises & Others

Dinesh Vs State of Kerala