Allowed

K.Ummer Haji v. Sayed Alavi

Kerala HC23 Mar 2013CRL.A/163/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of two concurrent criminal appeals against acquittal in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Setting aside the lower court's acquittal orders, the court remitted the matters for disposal by the trial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of acquittal set aside; cases restored to file; fresh notice issued for accused's presence.

K.Ummer Haji Vs Sayed Alavi — 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

SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2013/2ND CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 163 of 2013 (A)

¶6

Crl.L.P..27/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04/02/2013

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST.1045/2007 of J.M.F.C.,THALASSERY DATED 31/12/2008

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

K.UMMER HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, KIZHAKKUMBRATH HOUSE, PERINGANAM, PULLOORKARA, THALASSERY.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

¶11

SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/IST ACCUSED & STATE :

¶13

SAYED ALAVI, S/O.HASSAN, MANARIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PANNIYOOR SOUTH, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NAME OF THE ACCUSED

¶14

IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS HASSAN SAYED KOYA)

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMAPRASAD UNNI.T

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2013, ALONG WITH CRA. 165/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶19

Crl.A.Nos.163 & 165 of 2013

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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 orders dated 31/12/2008 in S.T.C.No.1045 of 2007 and S.T.C.No.1040 of 2007 of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in the above cases under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

As the party to the above two appeals is one and

¶24

the same and the facts and circumstances involved are identical including the impugned orders, except the cheque amount, these appeals are heard together and being disposed by a common judgment.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. As I am proposed to dispose of these appeals at this

¶26

¶27

Crl.A.Nos.163 & 165 of 2013

¶28

admission stage itself and particularly when, during the stage of the leave petition, the respondent has not responded to the notice issued by this Court and notice was served by affixture, I am not ordering notice again, especially considering the nature by which I propose to dispose these appeals.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/complainant is working abroad and he had entrusted the above brief with his counsel in the trial court with all instructions to prosecute the matter properly and diligently. But the said counsel failed to take steps at the appropriate stage which resulted in the impugned orders. The counsel submitted that, considering the fact that the cheques in question connected with Crl.A.Nos.163 of 2013 and 165 of 2013 are respectively cover an amount of Rupees ten lakhs and Rupees Fifteen lakhs, one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to prosecute the matters and to have a decision on merit. It is pointed out by the learned counsel

¶30

Crl.A.Nos.163 & 165 of 2013

¶31

¶32

that, in a similar situation this Court by a common judgment dated 17/08/2009 disposed identical appeals.

¶33

In the above circumstances, these appeals are disposed of setting aside the impugned orders in these appeals and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the cases back to file and dispose the matters in accordance with law and procedure. The appellant/ complainant is directed to appear before the court below on 23/04/2013 on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore S.T.C.Nos.1045 of 2007 and 1040 of 2007 and thereafter take out fresh notice for getting the presence of the accused before the court below.

¶34

These Criminal Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶37

skj

¶38

True copy

¶39

P.A. to Judge

K.Ummer Haji v. Sayed Alavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ummer Haji v. Sayed Alavi

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

M/S. North Shore Foods P. Ltde. Vs Ashif Muhammed & Another

V.S. Chandran Vs Bindhu, D/O.Radha

Vinod Kumar N.S. Vs Nissam

O.K.Ajith Kumar Vs Smt.Haseena

T.v.Savier @ T.v.Savi Vs Ajith Kumar Menon

Jayasekharan Thampy Vs State of Kerala