Allowed

K.Pradeepan v. K.K.Ajaykumar and Another

Kerala HC14 Jan 2016CRL.A/755/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case, where the lower court acquitted due to the complainant's unexplained absence and refusal to adjourn despite application. The appeal was allowed, case restored, and trial directed afresh with reasonable opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of acquittal set aside, case restored to files, and directed to be decided afresh by granting reasonable opportunity to the complainant.

K.Pradeepan Vs K.K.Ajaykumar and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 755 of 2009

¶6

S.T.C.NO.1131/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶8

K.PRADEEPAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 31 YEARS, MANAGER, M/S.BIGWIN STEELS, BAKKALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.M.X.ANTONY LIJO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE :

¶11

1. K.K.AJAYKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.MADHAVAN, UNNIKKULAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.VIVEK R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.A No.755 of 2009 ---------------------------------------

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2016

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Acquittal of the first respondent herein under Section 256(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a prosecution brought against him under Section 138 of the N.I Act is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant was granted permission by this court to file appeal against the acquittal. The first respondent entered appearance through learned counsel, but nobody is seen now to make arguments on behalf of the first respondent. On complaint cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate as S.T.C No.1131/2004 and the case proceeded for trial after the appearance of the accused and the necessary procedural formalities. However, on 18.7.2007 the complainant remained absent when the case came up for trial. Despite an application to adjourn the case on the ground of illness, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.

¶23

On hearing the learned counsel, and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find it appropriate in the

¶24

¶25

Crl.A No.755 of 2009

¶26

interest of justice to grant a reasonable opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the matter with diligence. There is nobody to oppose the request made in this appeal. Of course, it is true that the cheque amount involved is 25,273/-. Still the₹ matter requires decision on merits in the presence of both the parties. The appellant has a genuine grievance that he could not make appearance on 18.7.2007 due to some unavoidable circumstances, and that despite his genuine request for an adjournment the trial court acquitted the accused.

¶27

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the court below (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba) in S.T.C No.1131/2004 on 18.7.2007 will stand set aside, and the case will stand restored to files. The trial court is directed to decide the case afresh after granting reasonable opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence. Both the parties will appear before the learned Magistrate on 22.2.2016.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

K.Pradeepan v. K.K.Ajaykumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pradeepan v. K.K.Ajaykumar and Another

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

Sree Murukan Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Babu Vs Anjana

Shibili Vs State of Kerala

P.Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Pankajakshan Nair Vs Krishnankutty and Another

Tvm.Dist.Co-Op.Bank Vs a.Ahamad