The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a complainant in a cheque dishonour case against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court due to the complainant's repeated negligence and failure to prosecute the matter.
The appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/19TH POUSHA, 1935
CRL.A.No. 1084 of 2003 (E)
Crl.L.P. 50/2003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-06-2003
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.931/2001 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOTTARAKKARA
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT :
CHANDRALEKHA, LATHIKABHAVAN, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PRAVEEN
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No.1084 of 2003
Dated this the 09th day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is the appellant, as he is aggrieved by the impugned order, by which the accused is acquitted under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.
learned counsel for the respondent.
the cheque in question covers an amount of `40,000/- and the accused in the present case had never appeared before the trial court and therefore one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant/complainant is negligent in prosecuting the matter and on an earlier occasion ie., on 08/03/2002 the complaint was once disposed under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C., acquitting
Crl.A.No.1084 of 2003
2
the accused due to negligence of the complainant. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the said order was challenged by the very same appellant and this Court granted a further opportunity to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the matter as per the judgment of this Court dated 28/10/2002 in Crl.A.No.353 of 2002. It is thereafter the complainant defaulted in appearing before the court, which resulted in the order impugned in this appeal and therefore there is no justification in granting further opportunity.
Crl.A.No.1084 of 2003
3
opportunity to the appellant to prosecute the matter, but again the complainant failed to prosecute the matter effectively and due to his negligence the learned Magistrate was constrained to pass again an order under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. on 19/3/2003. It is against the above order, the present appeal is preferred on 03/07/2003. Even though the challenge in this appeal is against the order under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C., neither the appellant nor his counsel showed any interest to dispose the above appeal on an earlier occasion. From the above facts it can be seen that there is negligence on the part of the complainant in prosecuting the matter in spite of the fact that this Court had granted a further opportunity previously condoning the negligence of the complainant/ appellant. Therefore, at this belated stage this Court will not be justified in setting aside the legal order passed by the court below.
In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
skj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. due to default can be allowed despite repeated negligence by the complainant.
Whether this Court is justified in setting aside the acquittal order considering the appellant's failure to prosecute the matter effectively after granted opportunities.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandralekha
Geethakumari
The State of Kerala
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
