Allowed

Prakasan K. v. P.Sidharthan

Kerala HC5 Mar 2018CRL.A/54/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant against an acquittal order. The court quashed the acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. passed when the complainant was absent without representation, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the acquittal order dated 8.11.2012 in C.C. No.21 of 2012 and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings.

Prakasan K. Vs P.Sidharthan — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 54 of 2016 IN CRLP. 493/2015

¶6

CC 21/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, PARAPPANANGADI

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT

¶8

PRAKASAN K., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, KOLAKKUNNATH HOUSE, USHAS, PO ARIYALLUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

P.SIDHARTHAN, AGED 48 YEARS

¶12

S/O.VASU, L.D.CLERK, THE WAKAF TRIBUNAL, DEVASWAM BOARD

¶13

BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM,NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, PO

¶14

ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

¶17

KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶19

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI E C BINEESH

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶22

¶23

Crl. Appeal No.54 of 2016

¶24

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5^th day of March 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.21 of

¶27

2012 on the files of the court below.

¶28

The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent herein before the court below alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On 8.11.2012, the appellant was not present before the court below. There was also no representation for the appellant before the court below on that day. In the said circumstances, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, this

¶29

Crl. Appeal No.54/16

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

appeal has been filed by the complainant after obtaining special leave from this court.

¶32

Heard.

¶33

It has been submitted by the learned advocates on

¶34

both sides that on 30.10.2012, the case was posted to the Lok Adalath on 7.11.2012. On the next day, the case was posted before the court below. On that day, the complainant was not present before the court below. The complainant was also not present in the Lok Adalath on 7.11.2012. Therefore, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. No reason had been stated by the learned Magistrate as to why the case could not have been adjourned to some other day when the

¶35

Crl. Appeal No.54/16

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

complainant was not having representation before the court on 8.11.2012. It is also not stated in the order impugned that the presence of the complainant was necessary on 8.11.2012 for the progress of the case. In view of the above reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct and consequently, the same cannot be sustained.

¶38

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside order dated 8.11.2012 in C.C. No.21 of 2012 acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and the court below is directed to dispose of C.C. No.21 of 2012, in accordance

¶39

with law. The proceedings of the court below shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the

¶40

Crl. Appeal No.54/16

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

acquittal of the accused on 8.11.2012. The parties shall appear before the court below on 20.4.18 without further

¶43

notice.

¶44

¶45

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

dl/5.3.18

// True copy //

PA to Judge

Crl. Appeal No.54/16

: 5 :

Prakasan K. v. P.Sidharthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakasan K. v. P.Sidharthan

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

Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co.(Pvt) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Peter M.S. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Daniel Cherian Vs State of Kerala

Devadas Vs State of Kerala

T.Rugmini Vs Sarath P.P.

Maipally Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala