Allowed

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing L v. C.Ummerkutty

Kerala HC25 Sept 2018CRL.A/63/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by Mapman Finance against an order of acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The Court held that the acquittal was illegal because the complainant was physically present in court when the applicant did not take steps to issue process. The order was set aside, and proceedings were remitted to the stage prior to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal order set aside; case remitted to lower court to be disposed of from the stage prior to acquittal; 2003 case disposed in accordance with law.

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing L Vs C.Ummerkutty — 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

TUESDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 63 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 321/2003 of J.M.F.C.I,THRISSUR DATED 30-12-2004

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE AND

¶9

LEASING LIMITED, MANAPPURAM HOUSE,, P.O.VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER-LEGAL, AGED 31, BENNI THOMAS.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOMOHANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 C.UMMERKUTTY

¶13

CHATHENCHERY HOUSE, P.O.TRIPRANGODE,, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 108, (TIRUR POLICE STATION).

¶14

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

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. E C BINEESH-PUBLIC POSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.A.No. 63 of 2007

¶19

-2-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant is the complaint in C.C.No.321 of 2003

¶22

on the files of the court below. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. as per order dated 30.12.2004, against which this appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave from this court.

¶23

The appellant filed a complaint against the first

¶24

respondent herein before the court below alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On 30.12.2004, since the complainant did not take steps to issue process to the

¶25

accused as directed by the court below, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. stating

¶26

thus:-

¶27

CRL.A.No. 63 of 2007

¶28

-3-

¶29

"The mere presence of the complainant cannot be considered as the presence of the

¶30

complainant"

¶31

It is clear from the provisions of Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. that the court is having the discretion to acquit the accused only when the complainant is not present before the court. In this case, the complainant was physically present before the court as per the proceedings of the court below. In the said circumstances, the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. It is also to be noted that in the order impugned, it was recorded by the learned Magistrate that the complainant was not present either in person or by the pleader. However, the proceedings of the court below would clearly show that the

¶32

CRL.A.No. 63 of 2007

¶33

-4-

¶34

complainant was present in person before the court on

¶35

30.12.2004. This would show that the court below had

¶36

casually and mechanically passed the order impugned for the statistical purpose, which must be deprecated. Since the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. when the complainant was present before the court below, the order passed by the court below acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. is illegal, incorrect and improper and hence, the same cannot be sustained. (See Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Vanaja Rajendran [2018 (1) KLT 129]).

¶37

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the court below acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and the court below is directed to dispose of C.C. No.321 of 2003, in accordance with law. The proceedings of the

¶38

CRL.A.No. 63 of 2007

¶39

-5-

¶40

court below shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the acquittal of the accused on 30.12.2004. The appellant shall appear before the court below on 1.11.2018.

¶41

¶42

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶43

dl/ // True copy // PA to Judge

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing L v. C.Ummerkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing L v. C.Ummerkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K. Basheer & Co. Vs Lal Tech Enterprises (P) Ltd.

T.K. Basheer & Co. Vs Lal Tech Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Ajith Ravi Vs Maradu Municipality

Muhammed Jaseel K.P. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Joseph Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Lissy Thankachan Vs Binod Kumar B.