Allowed

C. Baburajan Pillai v. Been a.

Kerala HC14 Nov 2017CRL.A/830/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal against an acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. passed by the trial court. The acquittal was ordered due to the complainant's inability to hear the case number due to court congestion and absence of counsel, despite the complainant being present.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal impugned order dated 30.06.2017 stands set aside, and the complaint is restored to the file of the trial court for further proceedings.

C. Baburajan Pillai Vs Been a. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/23RD KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 830 of 2017 ()

¶6

ST 3097/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOLLAM.

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

C.BABURAJAN PILLAI, AGE 54, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER, RESIDING AT 'SREERAGAM', INCHAVILA P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM-691 601 (BY ADV.SRI.KAVANAD R. JAYAKUMAR)

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.S.KIRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1. BEEN A., AGED 44, W/O.BABUKUTTAN PILLAI, BANK EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT CHITTALA, KIZHAKKATHIL, PERUMON CHERRY, PANAYAM VILLAGE, PERUMON P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM, PIN-688605.

¶12

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

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

CRL.A.No. 830 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT ST NO.3097/2013 BEFORE JFCM-1, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN ST NO.3097/2013 BEFORE JFCM-1, KOLLAM.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

Crl.Appeal No. 830 of 2017

¶23

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2017

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The order under challenge in this appeal is the one rendered on 30.06.2017 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, whereby the accused in S.T.No.3097/2013 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by virtue of the enabling powers conferred under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

The appeal was admitted by this Court on 22.09.2017 on which day notice was also ordered to be issued to R1/accused by speed post. Now the registry has reported that notice to R1 has been duly served.

¶27

Heard Smt.M.S.Kiran, learned counsel for the

¶28

appellant/complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor for R2/State.

¶29

The impugned order dated 30.06.2017 reads as follows:

¶30

Complainant absent. Accused absent. Witness present. No representation for the complainant when the case was called twice after roll call. Hence accused is acquitted u/s.256 Cr.P.C.

¶31

The appellant has stated in paragraph 4 of the

¶32

memorandum of appeal points out that the trial court adjourned the case for further evidence to 16.03.2017 on which date the complainant was present but the accused was absent. Thereafter for further evidence the case was adjourned to 03.05.2017. On 03.05.2017 also the

¶33

Crl.Appeal No. 830 of 2017

¶34

¶35

complainant was present, the accused was absent and summons was issued to witness in the schedule filed by the complainant and the matter was adjourned to 30.06.2017. On 30.06.2017 the complainant himself was present before the court, but when the case was called he was unable to hear the case number due to the heavy rush in the court and some other witness in other case had entered in to the witness box and so the complainant was not represented due to confusion. The counsel for the complainant was happened to be in some other court and was engaged in hearing of some other case in that court. In these circumstances that the trial court has passed the impugned order. On a consideration of the above said aspects, this Court is of the view that, the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 requires interdiction. It is also submitted that the complainant was duly examined in this case as PW1.

¶36

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 rendered by the trial court in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by virtue of the enabling powers conferred under Section 256 of Cr.P.C will stand set aside. Resultantly it is ordered that the complaint of the appellant in S.T.No.3097/2013 will stand restored to the file of the trial court concerned.

¶37

The complainant and the learned counsel for the complainant shall personally appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on

¶38

Crl.Appeal No. 830 of 2017

¶39

¶40

06.12.2017, on which day the trial court will proceed further with the complaint, in accordance with law.

¶41

With these observations and directions this Crl. Appeal stands finally disposed of.

¶42

sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶43

AMV/15/11/2017

C. Baburajan Pillai v. Been a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Baburajan Pillai v. Been a.

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

Anivarya Chits (P) Ltd., Rep.by Power of Attorney Holder C.M.Govindan Nambiar Vs the State of Kerala

Anivarya Chits (P) Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Baby Mathew Vs Manoj

M/S.Gentleman Finance Vs Syamlal @ Lalan

Ravindran T.I. Vs E.v.Mohandas

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. [P] Ltd. Vs Eugin Cletus