Allowed

Ramesh Kumar v. Ajith

Kerala HC8 Aug 2018CRL.A/1875/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, setting aside the acquittal order of the trial court. The acquittal was based on the failure of the complainant to appear, which the High Court found unjustified as their presence was not essential for that stage of the proceedings. The trial court was remitted to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal order under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. was set aside, and the case below was remanded to proceed to the stage prior to acquittal.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Ajith — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1875 of 2007

¶6

Crl.L.P. 842/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-09-2007 C.C. NO.990/2004 OF THE JFCM, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT

¶8

RAMESH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S ENDOCRINOLOGY & IMMUNOLOGY LAB,, GROUND FLOOR, NORTH SQUARE, PARAMARA ROAD,, COCHIN-18.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & NOT PARTY:

¶11

1. AJITH, PARTNER, M/S ARMS DIAGNOSTIC & RESEARCH CENTRE, DARUSSALAM COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD,, KOZHIKODE-673304.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR

¶14

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

scl.

¶17

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

Crl.A. No. 1875 of 2007

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.990 of 2004 on the files of the court below. The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent herein before the court below, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act. The court below as per order dated 30-05-2007, acquitted the accused under Section 256 (1) of Cr.P.C., stating that the complainant was not having representation on that date before the court. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave from this Court.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the presence of the complainant was not necessary for the progress of the case on 30-05-2007 and in the said circumstances, the acquittal of the accused by the court below under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C was not justified. It appears from

¶24

Crl.A.1875/2007

¶25

-2-

¶26

the proceedings of the court below that the case was posted to 30-05-2007 for the appearance of the accused. In the said circumstances, the presence of the complainant was not necessary on 30-05-2007 for the progress of the case. In the said circumstances, the order of the court below acquitting the accused cannot be justified.

¶27

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned, acquitting the accused under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C and the court below is directed to proceed with C.C.No.990 of 2004 in accordance with law. The proceedings of the court below shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the acquittal of the accused on 30-5-2007.

¶28

The parties shall appear before the court below on 10-09-2018 without further notice.

¶29

Sd/B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶30

Scl/8.8.18

Ramesh Kumar v. Ajith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. Ajith

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

Babu Mohan P.B. Vs Baby Paul

Kumar Vs Pushantha Kumar

Dai. K. Augustine Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Abdulla Vs Kunhamootty

Joseph Thomas Vs M.Radhakrishnan and Another

Shameer Vs Sunitha Nazar