Allowed

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. v. B.Roy

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017CRL.A/279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against acquittal under Section 256 CrPC in a Section 138 NI Act case is allowed. The Court excused the complainant's absence, set aside the acquittal, and restored the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh summons and trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to the Court below to be proceeded with by issuing fresh summons on 15.7.2017.

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. Vs B.Roy — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 279 of 2017

¶6

ST 768/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM ---------

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S LEGAL CLERK, P.PRAMOD, S/O.PARAMESWARA KURUP

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BABU SRI.BABU SHANKAR SMT.N.SUDHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1. B.ROY, S/O.BERNAD, MOOLEYKADAYIL, INCHAVILA, PERINAD, KOLLAM, PINCODE 691601

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI JESTIN MATHEW

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.V.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.A.No.279 Of 2017

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2017.

¶19

The order impugned in this appeal is the one rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam, on 28.9.2015, whereby the accused in S.T.No.768/2013 has been acquitted under Sec.256(1) of the Cr.P.C. The complaint is filed by the appellant alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the 1st respondent-accused.

¶20

Though notice has been duly served in this appeal on R-1, there is no appearance for that party. Heard Smt.N.Sudha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant and the learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

¶21

The reasons for the absence of the complainant on 28.9.2015 have been explained in para 3 of the appeal memorandum which read as follows:

¶22

“3. The complaint was posted on 23.2.2015 for evidence after the appearance of the accused. Due to an inadvertent omission of the counsel for the complainant and his advocate clerk, the next posting dates were not communicated to the complainant or it's authorised representative, Sri.Ramanan who retired from the service of the complainant company in December, 2015. Before retirement, for a few months he was not physically well. Therefore he could not make necessary enquiry with the counsel regarding the progress of the case. On 8.10.2015 the meeting of the Board of Directors of the company authorised P.Pramod, aged 43 years, S/o.Parameswara Kurup, Legal Clerk of the complainant company to appear in all

¶23

::2::

¶24

Crl.A.No.279 Of 2017

¶25

cases of the company in Kollam or any other places, to conduct cases and to give evidence on behalf of the company. After the retirement of the earlier authorised representative, when enquiry was made in the office of the counsel for the complainant and thereafter in Court, he could know about the acquittal of the accused. The complainant was not negligent in prosecuting the case.”

¶26

The correctness of the said submissions have not been objected to by the 1st respondent-accused. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no materials as of now to disbelieve the factual version projected by the complainant. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken in the matter. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 28.9.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, in acquitting the accused will stand set aside and the complaint in S.T.No.768/2013 will stand restored to the court below. The complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant will appear before the court below at 11:00 a.m. on 15.7.2017, on which day the court below will issue fresh summons for appearance of the accused and then proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶27

With these observations and directions, the Crl.A stands finally disposed

¶28

of.

¶29

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶30

bkn/-

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. v. B.Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. v. B.Roy

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

Bhaskaran Vs Balakrishnan

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. Vs Prakash O.V

Velayudhan Vs Girishkumar

K.N. Ramakrishnan Vs K.M.Chacko

M. Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith J. Kappan Vs M/S. Sobha Steel