Allowed

Ravindran T.I. v. E.v.Mohandas

Kerala HC14 Nov 2017CRL.A/898/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal appeals against the trial court's order acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The Court set aside the acquittal and restored the complaints to the file, directing the complainant to appear and file the proof affidavit to proceed with the trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. was set aside; four complaints restored to the trial court file with directions for further proceedings.

Ravindran T.I. Vs E.v.Mohandas — 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. 898 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST. NO.183/2016 OF SPECIAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED 11-08-2017.

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

RAVINDRAN T.I.,

¶9

AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. ITTARU, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, FLAT NO. 52, NAVANI APARTMENTS, ZANANA MISSION ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR-680 020.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:

¶12

1. E.V. MOHANDAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, EDAKKADAN HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA, KOORKENCHERRY P.O, PIN- 680 007.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2017, ALONG WITH CRl.A. NO. 899 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

Crl.Appeal Nos. 898, 899, 900 & 905 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2017

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The subject matter of challenge in all these appeals is the common impugned order dated 11.08.2017 rendered by the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, whereby the accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the four complaints in S.T.Nos.180, 181, 182 and 183 of 2016. The appellant herein is the complainant and the 1^st respondent herein is the accused in the above said four complaints. The common impugned order dated 11.08.2017, reads as follows:-

¶22

The above numbered complaints are filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶23

2. In the above numbered cases joint trial petition was filed by the complainant and the same has been allowed on 14.07.2017 to try ST.180/16, ST.181/16, ST.182/16 and ST.183/16 together. It is also declared that ST.180/16 will be the lead case. The case adjourned for evidence as last chance to today. But today the complainant is absent and not ready to adduce evidence. I think the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence the above numbered cases are dismissed. Accused is acquitted U/s.256 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant and learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State. There is no appearance for R1/accused in spite of service of notice.

¶25

It is stated by the appellant on the day in question dated 11.08.2017, the appellant seeks some more time to finalise the proof affidavit, as the plea for conducting joint trial in respect of these four petitions was allowed only on 14.07.2017. Though the counsel for the appellant had filed application to condone the absence of the complainant on that day but without

¶26

¶27

Crl.A.Nos. 898, 899, 900 & 905 of 2017

¶28

considering those aspects, the trial court has dismissed the complaints and has acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant wanted some more time for giving proper instructions to the counsel to prepare the proof affidavit as some more documents were also to be collected. Learned counsel further submits that the proof affidavit will be filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination before the trial court. In view of these aspects, this Court is of the view that the impugned common order dated 11.08.2017 requires interdiction.

¶29

It is ordered that the impugned common order dated 11.08.2017 acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C., will stand set aside. Resultantly it is ordered that all the four complaints of the appellant in ST Nos.180, 181, 182 and 183 of 2016 will stand restored to the file of the trial court concerned.

¶30

The complainant and the counsel for the complainant shall appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on 06.12.2017, on which day the complainant should ensure that the proof affidavit is also filed with a copy served on the counsel for the accused. Thereafter the trial court will proceed further with the complaint, in accordance with law.

¶31

With these observations and directions these criminal appeals stand finally disposed of.

¶32

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶33

AMV/15/11/2017

¶34

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE

Ravindran T.I. v. E.v.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindran T.I. v. E.v.Mohandas

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

C. Baburajan Pillai Vs Been a.

M/S.Gentleman Finance Vs Syamlal @ Lalan

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