Allowed

Prasad P.C. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Feb 2018CRL.A/470/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against an acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case. The court set aside the acquittal, holding that the complainant's absence did not justify ending proceedings since the case was not properly transferred for defence evidence. The trial was remanded to the pre-acquittal stage. Quality is 'ok'.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of acquittal is set aside; the trial court is directed to proceed with Case No. 289/2012 from the stage prior to acquittal.

Prasad P.C. Vs State of Kerala — 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 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 470 of 2014 IN CRLP. 98/2014

¶6

CC 289/2012 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:-

¶8

PRASAD, S/O.CHERIYAN, PULLANTHURUTHIL HOUSE, KARUKADAM PO, KOTHAMANGALAM.S

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.C. DILIP

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & ACCUSED:-:

¶11

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

¶12

NAZAR.M.I., S/O.IBRAHIM, MATTAPPILLY MOOLAYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., KARIMUGAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 306.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

STK

¶16

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

--------------------------------

¶18

Crl. Appeal No.470 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.289/2012 on the files of the court below. The appellant filed a complaint before the court below against the second respondent herein alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act').

¶22

On 5.3.2014, the appellant was not present before the court below. There was also no representation for the appellant before the court on that day. In the said circumstances, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

It is contended by the appellant that the prosecution evidence was over and thereafter, the case stood posted to 29.11.2013 for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 29.11.2013, the accused was examined under Section 313

¶25

Crl. Appeal No.470 of 2014

¶26

Cr.P.C and the case stood posted to 7.12.2013 for defence evidence. On that day, the summons was issued to the defence witness and the case was posted to 28.12.2013. On that day, since the defence witness was not present, the court below issued warrant against the defence witness and posted the case to 24.01.2014. It is further stated that thereafter four opportunity had been given to the defence for adducing defence evidence. Ultimately, the case was posted to 5.3.2014 for hearing/ defence evidence. On that day, as the appellant was admitted in M.B.M.M. Hospital, Kothamangalam, he could not appear before the court below. It is not discernible from the order impugned as to whether the complainant was duly represented or not before the court on 5.3.2014. Since the case stood posted for hearing/defence evidence, the presence of the complainant was not necessary on 5.3.2014. In the said circumstances, the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused under Section

¶27

Crl. Appeal No.470 of 2014

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

256(1) Cr.P.C. stating that the complainant was not present before the court. Even otherwise, after completing the evidence of the complainant and the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the court was not at all justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. In view of the above reasons, the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently. I set aside the same.

¶30

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the court below is directed to proceed with C.C.No.289/2012, in accordance with law. The proceedings of the court below shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the acquittal of the accused on 5.3.2014. The appellant shall appear before the court below on 12.4.2018.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶33

STK

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Prasad P.C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad P.C. v. State of Kerala

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

Rajan P C Vs State of Kerala

Rajan P.C. Vs State of Kerala

Rajan P C Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Sidharthan Kattungal Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Faris Vs T.E.Kunhabdulla