Single-judge High Court allowed criminal appeal against acquittal in cheque dishonour case, setting aside acquittal order on terms that accused must receive compensation before complainant adduces evidence.
Acquittal set aside; case restored to trial court on condition that accused receives Rs. 2,000/- cost before complainant adduces evidence.
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 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 46 of 2016
ORDER DATED 31-07-2013ST 170/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - III, KOLLAM JUDGMENT DATED 05-01-2016 IN CRL.L.P. 3/2016
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
SUVARNA SATHYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.SATHYAN, BRAHMAVILASOM VEEDU, ASARAMAM MIDDLE WARD, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR G.
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED/STATE:
---------------------------------------------------
1. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SURABHI, AMBIPOIKA ROAD, KALARIMUKKU, VENNOOR JUNCTION, KUNDARA-682801.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
P.UBAID, J.
============================ Crl.Appeal No.46 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is aggrieved by an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kollam in favour of the first respondent herein, in S.T.No.170 of 2011, brought by the revision petitioner alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the date of trial, the appellant remained absent. An application was filed to excuse the absence of appellant before the Court. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255 Cr.P.C., on the ground of failure on the part of complainant to adduce evidence. The said order of acquittal dated 31.07.2013 is under challenge.
Crl.Appeal No.46 of 2016 2
grievance. But, I feel the necessity of compensating the first respondent with reasonable cost, for the hardship caused to him due to the default on part of the complainant. It is appropriate that he should be paid an amount of 2,000/- as₹ cost before the complainant is allowed to adduce evidence.
In the result, this appeal is allowed on terms. The order of acquittal passed by the court below in S.T.No.170 of 2011 dated 31.07.2013 will stand set aside, and the case will stand restored. The learned Magistrate will proceed from the stage at which the case was closed, and reasonable opportunities to adduce evidence shall be given to the complainant, on condition that an amount of 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand₹ only) shall be paid to the accused before proceeding to adduce evidence. This condition shall be enforced by the learned Magistrate before the complainant is allowed to adduce evidence. Both the parties will appear before the learned Magistrate on 25.02.2016.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE
rkj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal order passed by the lower court due to failure of complainant to adduce evidence should be set aside.
Whether the appellant should be granted opportunity to prosecute the appeal after payment of costs to the accused.
SUVARNA SATHYAN
STATE OF KERALA
PRABHAKARAN NAIR
P.UBNDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
