K.R.Lalu v. Alex C.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the acquittal order of the trial court. The court held that the trial judge erred in invoking powers under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. without considering adjournment, especially given the non-appearance of the accused and the pending warrant.
What did the court decide?
Order dated 5.9.2003 set aside; case S.T.No.41/2002 restored to files for trial.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 69 of 2004 (A)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 535/2003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-11-2003
AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 41/2002 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, TVM (SPL.COURT-MARKLIST CASES) DATED 05-09-2003
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
K.R.LALU, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF BRITISH INDIAN SHIRTS, SARUJA, T.C.7/1729(2) PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:
- H.MAHEEN, PARUTHITHOPPU VEEDU, NEAR SPIN MILL, BALARAMAPURAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. for the absence of the complainant on an appointed day.
Whether the exercise of discretion under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. was judicial in view of pending non-bailable warrant and complainant's non-appearance.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
K.R.Lalu
- respondent
H.Maheen
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court