The High Court allowed an appeal against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. It held the trial court erroneously assumed the complainant was uninterested due to intermittent absence. The appeal allowed and proceedings restored.
Criminal appeal allowed; S.T.No.555 of 2015 restored to trial court files; parties directed to appear for evidence.
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
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 833 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 555/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
ISSAC VAS S/O.BENEDICT VAS, MANAGING PARTNER, LOCATION MEDIA, XXVIII/85/75, AVOKKARAN ARCADE, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
2 LAILA NOORUDHEEN SHAH PARTNER, SHAH ADVERTISERS, KADAVANTHODE BUILDING, WEST PALACE ROAD, NEAR BHIMA GOLD, NORTH BUS STAND, THRISSUR 680 020.
BY ADVS. M.C. ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.GANGESH FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NO.833 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023
The appellant was the complainant in S.T.No.555 of 2015 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The complaint was filed against the 2nd respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was posted for evidence on 14.01.2016 and thereafter, adjourned at the instance of either the complainant or the accused, and, on some occasions, by notification. Finally, when the matter was taken up on 10.06.2016, finding that the complainant was absent, it was assumed that the complainant was not interested to proceed with the case and hence, the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
3
CRL.A.NO.833 OF 2016
case. The complainant was present on most of the dates and whenever he was absent, the complainant was represented. As such, the assumption of the court that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint is incorrect. Being so, the judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained.
In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and S.T.No.555 of 2015 is restored to the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 29.06.2023 and shall get ready for evidence at the earliest.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB/13-6
CRL.A.NO.833 OF 2016
4
APPENDIX OF CRL.A 833/2016
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: NIL
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the assumption by the trial court that the complainant was not interested due to absence was legally tenable.
Whether the judgment of acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. should be sustained.
ISSAC VAS
STATE OF KERALA
LAILA NOORUDHEEN SHAH
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
