Allowed

C.Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2019CRL.A/273/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. granted when the complainant was absent. The Court directed the lower court to proceed with the cheque dishonour case on merits, setting aside the initial acquittal order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.10.2001 acquitting the accused was set aside; appellant permitted to contest the matter on merits before the lower court.

C.Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.273 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 93/1998 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V,KOZHIKODE DATED 18-10-2001

¶7

APPELLANT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

C.ANIL KUMAR AGED 36 YEARS S/O SUGATHAN, CHEROTTE HOUSE, B.G.ROAD, CALICUT-11

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

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

¶13

2 P. SAHADEVAN, AGED 44 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF P.K. SONS ENGINEERING WORKS NADUVATTOM, NORTH BEYPORE.P.O, KOZHIKODE-15

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No.273 of 2007

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.93 of 1998 on the files of the court below. The appellant filed a complaint against the second respondent herein before the court below, alleging offence under Section 138 of the

¶20

N.I.Act. The court below on 18.10.2001 acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C, on the reason that the complainant was not present before the court, either in person or through pleader on that day, against which this appeal has been filed.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the appellant has

¶23

submitted that it was only due to a mistake in noting the date of posting of the case that the Counsel for the appellant

¶24

CRL.A.No.273 of 2007

¶25

¶26

could not make representation before the court on 18.10.2001, when the case was called. In the said circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant has pleaded for granting one more opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits.

¶27

It appears that the accused did not appear before

¶28

the court, in response to the summons issued from the court. The court, therefore, resorted to co-ercise steps to procure the presence of the accused. The court initially issued steps under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused and the case stood posted to 16.07.2001. On that day, the court ordered steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and posted the case to 18.10.2001. There was no representation for the complainant before the court on that day. The accused was also not present before the court on that day. In the said circumstances, the court below acquitted the

¶29

¶30

CRL.A.No.273 of 2007

¶31

accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.

¶32

It appears that the presence of the complainant was not necessary for the progress of the case on 18.10.2001. In the said circumstances, the court below was not justified in axing down the complaint at the threshold on 18.10.2001 under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the view that it is only

¶33

just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits. For the said reason, I am inclined to set aside order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the court below.

¶34

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the court below acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and the court below is directed to proceed with the complaint, in accordance with law.

¶35

CRL.A.No.273 of 2007

¶36

¶37

The parties shall appear before the court below on

¶38

02.09.2019 without further notice.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

RK/22.07.2019

C.Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Anil Kumar 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

Vipinkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf.a Vs State of Kerala

Al Ameen Vs State of Kerala

Chandrashekharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Radhamani Amma Vs State of Kerala