Allowed

Vinod Kumar P.S. v. Domy K. Paul

Kerala HC13 Aug 2013CRL.A/814/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging an acquittal by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Ottapalam. The acquittal was based on the complainant's absence on the evidence date. The High Court, hearing the appeal, allowed it, set aside the acquittal, and restored the complaint to file for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order of acquittal is set aside; the complaint is restored to file for further proceedings.

Vinod Kumar P.S. Vs Domy K. Paul — 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

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/22ND SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 814 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 3823/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, OTTAPPALAM DATED 13.8.2013

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.L.P. 298/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-06-2013

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

VINOD KUMAR P.S.

¶10

S/O. P.R.SRIDHARAN, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE VADANAMKURISSY, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:

¶13

DOMY K. PAUL S/O. PAUL @ DOMINIC, KOZHIKKARA HOUSE, KANJOOR KALADY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-682047.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-

¶17

2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

al/-

¶19

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶20

Crl.Appeal No. 814 of 2013

¶21

Dated this the 13^th day of August 2013.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The complainant in S.T.No.3823/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam is the appellant herein. The compliant 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 9.11.2009. On that day, the court below dismissed the complaint finding that the complainant was absent.

¶24

It is submitted that the accused entered appearance through counsel. The case was posted on 9.11.2009 for evidence. It is submitted that on that date, the complainant was at Chennai and therefore, he could not appear before the court for adducing evidence. A petition was filed before the court for excusing the absence. It is submitted that there was absolutely no wilful latches or negligence on their part in not 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 the Criminal

¶25

Crl.Appeal No.814/2013

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

Procedure Code.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

Sd/-

al/-

True copy

P.A. To Judge

Vinod Kumar P.S. v. Domy K. Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar P.S. v. Domy K. Paul

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

Shajikumar Vs Smt.Sethu.K.

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Ltd. Vs Anilkumar

Kanakamma Vs State of Kerala

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

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

Ratheesh Kumari P. Vs M.Muralidas