Allowed

Joy Thomas v. Benny S.Thomas

Kerala HC21 May 2015CRL.A/1570/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an appeal against an acquittal order passed under Section 256 CrPC due to complainant's absence. The Court remanded the cheque dishonour case for trial on merits, rejecting the mechanical closure caused by the accused's prior absconding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of acquittal set aside; case remitted to the court below for trial and disposal on merits. Parties directed to appear on 30.6.2015.

Joy Thomas Vs Benny S.Thomas — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2015/31ST VAISAKHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1570 of 2004 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 488/2004 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-08-2004

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 985/1999 of J.M.F.C.,PALA

¶8

DATED 29-03-2004

¶9

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

JOY THOMAS, MUTHUPLACKAL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED(S):

¶13

BENNY S.THOMAS, KADATTUKULAM HOUSE, THAIKKATTU KARA, ALWAYA P.O.

¶14

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

¶15

R2 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R1 BY ADV. SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Crl.A No.1570 of 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21^st May, 2015

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

A judgment of acquittal under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a prosecution brought under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is under challenge. When the complainant remained absent on the day fixed for trial of the case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused (1^st respondent herein) by order dated 29.3.2004. The complaint in this case was filed long back in 1999. The cheque amount involved in the prosecution is 80,500/-. The impugned order does not₹ show that the complainant was consistently absent, or that he remained absent whenever the case came up for consideration. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that the trial, or consideration of the prosecution was delayed only because the accused absconded. Now the accused is very much present before this Court, represented by a counsel of his choice. In the above circumstances, it is appropriate that the case be tried and decided on merits. A

¶22

Crl.A No.1570 of 2004

¶23

¶24

complaint brought in 1999 involving an amount of 80,500/-₹ happened to be mechanically closed by order of acquittal in 2004, and that too in a circumstance where the accused absconded. It is really cruel, unjust and inappropriate that the prosecution happened to be thus closed. In the interest of justice, I feel it absolutely necessary that the case be tried and disposed of on merits.

¶25

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of acquittal by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala in C.C No.985 of 1999 will stand set aside, and the case will stand remitted to the court below for trial and disposal on merits. The parties will appear in the trial court on 30.6.2015. The Registry will immediately transmit the case records to the trial court.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Joy Thomas v. Benny S.Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Thomas v. Benny S.Thomas

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

Motor & General Finance (India) Ltd. Vs K.C.Victor

Vijayamma Vs State of Kerala

Vishwambharan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State

Rajeev Vs the State of Kerala