Allowed

Muhammed.P.S. v. Renny.P.P

Kerala HC1 Dec 2014CRL.A/1110/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against an order acquitting the accused due to the complainant's absence. The court set aside the acquittal and restored the summary trial case to the lower court for decision on merits, emphasizing the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of acquittal dated 30.7.2014 is set aside and the summary trial case is restored to the file of the lower court to be decided on merits within six months.

Muhammed.P.S. Vs Renny.P.P — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶3

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶4

CRL.A.No. 1110 of 2014 ()

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.L.P. 342/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-10-2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 204/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II,THODUPUZHA DATED 13.10.14

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

MUHAMMED.P.S,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O SEIDALI, KALAYANATHANI KARA, ALAKKODU VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTIRCT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.JAISON JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1. RENNY.P.P, S/O PRABHAKARAN, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THEPUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

==================

¶17

Crl.Appeal No. 1110 of 2014

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2014 J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal has been instituted under Sec.378(4) of the Cr.P.C. to impugn the order dated 30.7.2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thodupuzha, in S.T.No.204/2013 as per the impugned judgment. As per the impugned judgment dated 30.7.2014 the court below dismissed the above summary trial case due to the absence of the complainant on that day and acquitted the accused under Sec.256(1) Cr.P.C. The Summary Trial Case, S.T.No.204/2013 arose out of the private criminal complaint filed by the appellant (complainant herein) alleging that the 1^st respondent herein (accused) has committed offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the alleged dishonour of the cheque in question. The court below in the impugned order has stated that the case was posted to 13.5.2013 and 24.7.2013 and later to 30.7.2014 for evidence of the complainant. Since the complainant was absent on that date, no evidence was adduced. It is on that basis that the court below has acquitted the accused under Sec.256 (1) Cr.P.C.

¶21

Crl.A.1110/14 - : 2 :-

¶22

It is urged by Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the appellant in this case that the accused was absent on 13.5.2013, 24.7.2013 and 30.7.2014. It is urged by Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, the learned counsel for the appellant in this case that the facts stated in para 2 of the impugned judgment that the case was posted to 13.5.2013 and 24.7.2013 are wrong and that in fact the case was posted before the court below on 13.5.2014 and 24.7.2014 and that on those days, the appellant was absent and that the appellant's counsel was present and the appellant's counsel had duly submitted applications for the absence of the complainant due to bonafide reasons on 13.5.2014 and 24.7.2014 and that the court below had allowed those applications regarding the absence of the complainant on 13.5.2014 and 24.7.2014. On 24.7.2014, the learned counsel for the appellant could not appear before the court below due to personal inconvenience and therefore he had entrusted the file to another counsel, who duly appeared for the complainant on 24.7.2014 before the court below and while noting the next posting date, which the court had ordered, the said counsel had inadvertently and erroneously noted that the next posting date as 30.8.2014 instead of 30.7.2014. It is due to these reasons that the counsel for the complainant and the complainant could not

¶23

Crl.A.1110/14 - : 3 :-

¶24

appear before the court below when the case was called on 30.7.2014, on the erroneous belief that the case was in fact posted to 30.8.2014. Due to these reasons, when the case was called on 30.7.2014, the complainant and the counsel for the appellant/complainant did not appear before the court below on that day, which led to the passing of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

¶25

Notice before admission in this appeal was ordered by this Court on 7.11.2014 and the Criminal Appeal has been admitted on 24.11.2014. It has been noted by the Registry that notice has been sent to the 1^st respondent and that acknowledgement card in this regard has been signed for the 1^st respondent. Therefore the service of notice on R-1 is complete. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for R-2 State of Kerala.

¶26

Heard Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent-State.

¶27

The averment of the appellant in para 6 of the appeal memorandum regarding the aforementioned aspects due to which the appellant and his counsel were absent before the court below on

¶28

Crl.A.1110/14 - : 4 :-

¶29

30.7.2014 has not been denied and remained unrebutted. That apart, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest of justice would be better subserved by ordering that the Summary Trial Case is decided on its merits after reasonable opportunity to both sides.

¶30

In this view of the matter, taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned order 30.7.2014 shall stand set aside and the Summary Trial Case, S.T.No.204/2013, shall stand restored to file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thodupuzha. The court below will render a decision on merits in the matter after reasonable opportunity to both sides and in accordance with law. As the Summary Trial Case has been instituted in the year 2013, it is further ordered in the interest of justice that the court below will endeavour to ensure that the said case is finally disposed of within six months.

¶31

With these observations and directions, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

sdk+

¶34

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy///

¶35

P.S. to Judge

¶36

Crl.A.1110/14 - : 5 :-

Muhammed.P.S. v. Renny.P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed.P.S. v. Renny.P.P

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

Pastor George Kochakken Vs State of Kerala

Sureshkumar.R. Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Ranni

C.L.Thomas Vs K.K.Chandran

Kamala Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh K. Mathew Vs M.P.Jayasree