In this criminal appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case, the appellant/complainant remained absent and failed to prosecute. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The criminal appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's absence and failure to prosecute.
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 P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 1926 of 2010
CC 558/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VAIKOM DATED 25-01-2010
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
V.S.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR @ MANIAN PILLAI, MANIMANDIRAM HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALOM PO, MUTTUCHIRA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE:
1. KRISHNANKUTTY @ KUNJUKUTTY, KALLUMADAYIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH PO, KALLARA VAIKOM.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.A No.1926 of 2010
--------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The appellant herein is the complainant in C.C. No.558/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Vaikom, which is a prosecution brought under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the complainant consistently remained absent on different posting dates, and failed to adduce any evidence, the learned Magistrate passed orders on 25.1.2010 acquitting the accused under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. The complainant challenges the said order of acquittal as permitted by this Court, on application. When the appeal came up for hearing there was nobody to make representation for the appellant. Thus here also he remained absent. In such a situation, this appeal is liable for dismissal for non-prosecution.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution.
P.UBAID JUDGE
ab
//True Copy//
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal appeal filed by a complainant who consistently remained absent and failed to prosecute should be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.S.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR @ MANIAN PILLAI
KRISHNANKUTTY @ KUNJUKUTTY
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
