Allowed

C.Suryanarayana Bhat v. Purushothaman M.

Kerala HC6 Aug 2018CRL.A/945/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the lower court under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The Court found the acquittal unsustainable as the lower court failed to apply its mind and assign reasons for not adjourning despite the complainant's diligent prosecution and prior representation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed, acquittal order dated 13.01.2005 quashed, proceedings relegated to stage prior to acquittal, trial to be continued.

C.Suryanarayana Bhat Vs Purushothaman M. — 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 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 945 of 2005

¶6

CC 847/2003 of C.J.M., KASARAGOD

¶7

APPELLANT(S)

¶8

C.SURYANARAYANA BHAT, AGED 44/03,

¶9

S/O.LATE SANKARA BHAT, CHARAVU HOUSE,, POST KOTOOR, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. PURUSHOTHAMAN.M., S/O.C.AMBU, BUS CONDUCTOR, ALANTHADUKKA HOUSE, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK,, KASARAGOD DT.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

STK

¶17

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl. Appeal No.945 of 2005

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.847/2003 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 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the N.I.Act'). The court below on 13.01.2005 acquitted the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C., stating that the complainant had no representation on that day, against which, this appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave from this Court.

¶23

Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The order of the court below is extracted

¶25

hereunder:-

¶26

“The case was called on for hearing today to which it

¶27

Crl. Appeal No.945 of 2005

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

had been posted/adjourned.

¶30

The complainant not being present either in person or by the pleader the accused is acquitted under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code.”

¶31

The order extracted above would show that the complainant had no representation before the court on 13.01.2005. However, the proceedings of the court below would show that the complainant was duly represented by a lawyer on 13.01.2005 and the said lawyer had applied for the absence of the complainant on that day. The court below rejected the application and acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that the complainant was present before the court below on 31.12.2003 and 29.05.2004. However, the evidence was not recorded on the said days. Even though the case was posed to 29.05.2004 for evidence, no reason was stated by the court below as to why the evidence was not recorded on that day. On 13.01.2005, the complainant was duly represented by a lawyer. The order impugned

¶32

Crl. Appeal No.945 of 2005

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

would show that the court below did not apply its mind before signing the said order. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the complainant was diligently prosecuting his case throughout. That apart, no convincing reason had been assigned by the court below as to why the case could not have been adjourned to some other day when the court found that the complainant was not present before the court on that day.

¶35

Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there was no justification in acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. by the court below on 13.01.2005. In view of the above reason, I am of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained.

¶36

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside order dated 13.01.2005 passed by the court below in C.C.No.847/2003 and the court below is directed to proceed with C.C.No.847/2003, in accordance

¶37

Crl. Appeal No.945 of 2005

¶38

-: 4 :-

¶39

with law. The proceedings of the court below shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the acquittal of the accused on 13.01.2005. The appellant shall appear before the court bellow on 12.09.2018 without further notice.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

STK

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

C.Suryanarayana Bhat v. Purushothaman M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Suryanarayana Bhat v. Purushothaman M.

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

G.F.S.Chits & Loans (P) Ltd. Vs Raghu Prabhakaran

C. Khadeeja Vs T.K. Premachandran

Jayakumar Vs State

Mathew John Vs Joseph Augustine

Thoppil Chits Ltd. Vs K.Krishnakumar Prabhu

Kristal Infrastructure Ltd. Vs State of Kerala