Baby Mathew v. Manoj
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside an acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case (Section 138 NI Act) where the complainant did not appear due to date confusion. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the matter was remitted to the trial court.
What did the court decide?
Impugned acquittal order set aside; complaint restored to trial court file subject to appellant paying Rs.1,500 cost to accused's counsel.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 901 of 2017 ()
ST 14/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PALA.
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
BABY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, ARACKAL HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SMT.K.R.MONISHA
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
1. MANOJ, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KARUVALEL HOUSE, MEVIDA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686573.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an acquittal order rendered under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. due to non-appearance of the complainant can be set aside given the factual context of a settlement and procedural error.
Whether the appellant is liable to pay costs to the respondent's counsel as a condition for setting aside the acquittal and restoring the complaint.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Baby Mathew
- respondent
Manoj
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court