Allowed

M/S.Wipro Ltd. v. Mr.Manoj Kumar

Kerala HC18 Nov 2013CRL.A/1620/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against acquittal in cheque bounce case. Court remanded matter for trial only if appellant deposits ₹10,000 within one month. Trial must conclude within six months of remand or order will be vacated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; case remanded for trial on merit within six months if appellant deposits ₹10,000 within one month; failure to comply results in dismissal of appeal.

M/S.Wipro Ltd. Vs Mr.Manoj Kumar — 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/27TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1620 of 2003

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 570/1999 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM DATED 24-07-2003

¶7

Crl.L.P. 369/2003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15-09-2003

¶8

APPELLANT:COMPLAINANT :

¶9

M/S.WIPRO LTD., C/O.KERALA ROADWAYS LTD., 362/2, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR POST, N.H.ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE & POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.C.J.LEENUS, ACCOUNTS OFFICER, M/S.WIPRO LTD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:ACCUSED & STATE :

¶12

MANOJ KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, MANOJ & MANOJ MARKETING ASSOCIATES, NEAR N.S.S.MAIN GATE, KOTTIYAM, QUILON DISTRICT.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶17

Crl.A.No.1620 of 2003

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellant is the complainant in a prosecution for the

¶21

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act connected with the alleged dishonour of cheque dated 07/03/1998 for an amount of `1,36,046.88. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 24/7/2003 acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the complainant was present almost on all posting dates, but the accused never appeared in spite of the fact that the coercive steps have taken against him. It is the further case of the learned counsel that, as the court hall was busy with Advocates and clients on the date of the impugned order, the concerned counsel could not enter into the court

¶24

Crl.A.No.1620 of 2003

¶25

:-2-:

¶26

hall and therefore when the case was called he could not made any representation. The above submissions are appears to be incorrect. The order sheet shows that on many of the dates the complainant was absent. But the counsel submits that the complainant was represented by the learned counsel. On 07/07/2003 also the complainant was absent and hence the case was adjourned and posted to a near date i.e., on 24/07/2003. But on 24/7/2003 also the complainant was absent and there was no representation for the complainant. To get over the above situation, the learned counsel submitted that the concerned counsel in the trial court could not enter into the court hall since the same was crowded. The above submission according to me seems to be incorrect and false, since no copy application was filed on 24/7/2003 or on any near date. The certified copy of the impugned order shows, the copy application was made only on 25/8/2003, after more than one month time. So the negligence on the part of the complainant is discernible from the above facts. It is under the above circumstances, the court below constrained to pass an

¶27

Crl.A.No.1620 of 2003

¶28

:-3-:

¶29

order under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.

¶30

As the order under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. it is crystal clear that the court below has not considered the case of the complainant on merit. But it is relevant to note that, the cheque in question covers an amount of `1,36,046.88. Though cognizance was taken upon the complaint preferred by the complainant connected with the dishonour of cheque, which covers a huge amount, there is no decision on merit. The order sheet of the court below shows that the complainant was taken earnest steps to prosecute the matter, but the accused did not appear. But at the very same time, in the light of the facts stated above, it is clear that, there was negligence on the part of the complainant in prosecuting the matter effectively not only in the trial court but also before this Court and for the last ten years the appeal was pending before this Court and no earnest step is seen taken for an early disposal of the appeal even though the order impugned is under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. Under the above circumstances, though this Court is inclined to give a further opportunity to the complainant the

¶31

Crl.A.No.1620 of 2003

¶32

:-4-:

¶33

same can be done only on cost. As the accused did not appear before the trial court he is not entitled to get any portion of such cost.

¶34

In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 24/7/2003 of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in C.C.No.570 of 1999 on condition the appellant depositing a sum of 10,000/- in the trial court, within one month, i.e., on or before 18/12/2013. Accordingly, the court below is directed to post the case, i.e., C.C.No.570 of 1999 before that court on **18/12/2013,** on which date the complainant is directed to appear before that court and to deposit a sum of 10,000/- on or before 18/12/2013. The accused is also directed to appear before the trial court on the above date. In case the appellant/complainant appear and deposit `10,000/- as directed above to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the above case after securing the presence of the accused and dispose the matter on merit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from

¶35

Crl.A.No.1620 of 2003

¶36

:-5-:

¶37

the date of posting of the above case on 18/12/2013. If there is any failure on the part of the appellant/complainant either in appearing before the court below on the date above notified or failure in depositing the amount within the time granted, this order will stand vacated and the appeal will stand dismissed. In case of deposit of the above amount, the trial court is directed to remit the entire amount in the State Exchequer.

¶38

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶39

skj

¶40

True copy

¶41

P.A. to Judge

M/S.Wipro Ltd. v. Mr.Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Wipro Ltd. v. Mr.Manoj Kumar

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

George Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

K.Khader Haji Vs P.K.Kanakarajan

K.S.Ravi Vs Sadanandan

Sathyaseelan Vs Sudesan

K.Murali Vs State of Kerala