The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for cheque dishonour. Setting aside the acquittal, the Court restored the trial on condition of the complainant's diligent prosecution and payment of costs.
Impugned order of acquittal set aside; trial restored; costs of Rs.3,000 awarded to accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 668 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 44/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, CHENGANNUR
APPELLANT/S/COMPLAINANT:
SAJI THOMAS
AGED 54 YEARS,S/O. PETER THOMA, RESIDING AT NELLISSERI
PARAYIL HOUSE, KALLISSERRY P.O,CHENGANNUR
VILLAGE,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENT/S/STATE OF KERALA AND ACCUSED:
1THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM
2 SHAJI P.G PUTHENTHIPPIL KIZHAKKETHIL,KARAKADU P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.RENJITH GEORGETHIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CRL.A NO. 668 OF 2018
JUDGMENT Dated this the 5th day of June, 2023
The appellant is the complainant in S.T.No.44 of 2017
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Chengannur. The complaint is filed alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the second respondent. According to the appellant, the second respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and issued a cheque towards discharge of the liability. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Although appellant issued notice demanding payment of the amount, the second respondent failed to meet the demand. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the acquittal of the second respondent/accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.
CRL.A NO. 668 OF 2018
3
the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted for having acquitted the accused. At the same time, considering that the amount involved is Rs.3,00,000/-, and the submission of the learned Counsel that henceforth the appellant will prosecute the complaint diligently, I am inclined to take a lenient view.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the second respondent. S.T.No.44 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Chengannur shall be restored to file, on the appellant producing certified copy of this judgment, along with receipt evidencing payment of cost to the second respondent.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
RK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. should be set aside due to the complainant's consecutive absence during evidence recording?
Whether the impugned order acquitting the accused in a cheque dishonour case be dismissed and the trial restored?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saji Thomas
The State of Kerala
Shaji P.G Puthenthippil
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court