Allowed

Chalayil Financiers v. M.Chacko

Kerala HC2 Jun 2023CRL.A/948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the Criminal Appeal challenging an acquittal. The court found the complainant lacked diligence in availing opportunities to produce evidence. The judgment is set aside, trial ordered, and costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is set aside; the trial is to be taken up afresh; the appellant must pay Rs. 2,000 to the respondent within two weeks.

Chalayil Financiers Vs M.Chacko — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.A NO. 948 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 430/2013 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶7

ST 12/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, CHENGANACHERRY

¶8

Crl.L.P. 238/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

CHALAYIL FINANCIERS
HOUSE NO. 11/450, THURUTHY, KURICHI REP BY ITS LICENSEE
M PRASOBH KUMAR PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, THURUTHY P.O.
VAZHAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686535

¶11

BY ADVS.
N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
N.C.MOHANAN
ABRAHAM MATHAN
ATHUL TOM

¶12

RESPONDENT/S/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶13

1 M.CHACKO

¶14

NAIKKAPARAMBIL VEEDU KURICHI P.O. KURICHI KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686532

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶16

BY ADVS.
M.P MADHAVANKUTTY
MATHEW DEVASSI(K/000548/2017)
ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA(K/001032/2016)
REMYA M. MENON(K/001042/2022)

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.A NO. 948 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2023

¶23

The complainant in S.T.No.12 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Changanassery has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal under Section 256 (1) of Cr.P.C.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that his client had been diligently prosecuting the complaint and failure to appear on the last posting dates was for reasons beyond his control. Opposing this submission, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the latches on the part of the complainant had resulted in the judgment of acquittal and going by the dates and events, no interference is warranted.

¶25

The order sheet of the trial court shows that, on most of the occasions, the complainant was present or represented. At the same time, the complainant was not diligent enough in availing the opportunity for production of further evidence granted by the Court, evident from

¶26

CRL.A NO. 948 OF 2022

¶27

3

¶28

complainant’s absence on 21.10.2013, in spite of the case having been adjourned on cost on the previous posting date. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, while providing the complainant an opportunity to prosecute the case on merits, the accused should be compensated for the trouble he has been put to.

¶29

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment set aside, on condition of the petitioner paying cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the respondent through his Counsel before this Court within two weeks. S.T.No.12 of 2012 shall be taken back to file and proceeded with on the petitioner producing certified copy of this judgment along with receipt evidencing payment of cost.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

V.G.ARUN,JUDGE

¶32

RK

Chalayil Financiers v. M.Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chalayil Financiers v. M.Chacko

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

Immanuel Vs State of Kerala

Sooryalal Vs State of Kerala

Pradeepkumar Vs Gnanadhas Christopher

Oolamkunnath O.M. Sindhu Vs Alokandy Krishnan

Preethi D Souza Vs State of Kerala

Jolly Mathew Vs Sambasivan