The High Court set aside the acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case. The court held that the accused's absence during trial was not properly recorded and restored the matter for a fresh trial on merits.
The impugned order of acquittal was set aside and the case was restored to files for retrial.
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. 1990 of 2010 ( )
Crl.L.P. 997/2010 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT ST 996/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT :
----------------------------------------
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., FORT P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING BRANCH AT PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NASEEN.N.I, EMPLOYED AS MANAGER, DIST.CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENTS :
---------------------
1. A. AHAMMED KABEER, RESIDING AT TC 14/1220, PALAVOILA VEEDU, LANIN NAGAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 & 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:
bp
P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.A No. 1990 of 2010 ---------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
A judgment of acquittal under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C in a prosecution brought under Section 138 of N.I Act is under challenge. The first respondent (accused) entered appearance before this Court but later remained absent. The impugned order of acquittal does not show that the accused was present when the case came up for trial. The first respondent probably knows that he has no case to be argued. I feel it appropriate in the interest of justice to grant an opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the complaint with diligence. The matter requires decision on merits in the presence of both the parties.
In the result this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T No.996/2008 is set aside and the case is restored to files. The learned Magistrate will take decision afresh on merits, after hearing both the parties, and after granting reasonable opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence. Both the parties will appear in person on 16.2.2016.
P.UBAID JUDGE
ab
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal in a cheque dishonour case should be set aside when the accused was present during trial without being recorded?
Whether the appellant is entitled to prosecute the complaint with diligence after the acquittal order has been passed?
Whether the impugned order of acquittal needs to be set aside and the case restored for a fresh trial on merits?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
A. AHAMMED KABEER
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
