Allowed

Krishnagopalan v. Arul Prakasam

Madras HC20 Jun 2018CRL A/572/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Criminal Appeal against the dismissal of a private complaint for non-constitution of counsel, holding that dismissal without cognizance is not a valid acquittal. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside earlier order dismissed under Section 256 CrPC is set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration within one month.

Krishnagopalan Vs Arul Prakasam — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PONGIAPPAN

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2011

¶6

R. Krishnagopalan ..Appellant/Complainant

¶7

Vs. G. Arul Prakasam .. Respondent/Accused

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti in C.M.P.No.4752 of 2010 by its judgment dated 14.06.2011, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, under Section of Cr.PC.

¶9

For Appellant/Complainant : Mr.C.D. Johnson For Respondent/Accused : Mr.D.S. Thirumavalavan J U D G M E N T

¶10

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, dated 14.06.2011, in C.M.P.No.4752 of 2010, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The appellant herein had filed a private complaint as against the respondent herein stating that he had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and since there was a delay of 316 days in preferring the said complaint, the appellant filed C.M.P.No.4752 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, to condone the said delay. When the petition in the above C.M.P. came up for hearing before the Trial Court, finding that there was no

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

representation on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the complaint itself under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquitted the respondent/accused. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶15

On a perusal of the order under challenge, it is seen that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error by acquitting the accused, which has to be necessarily rectified. Without taking cognizance of the offence committed, the acquittal of the accused, at the condonation of delay stage, for non-representation on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, cannot be sustained.

¶16

Hence, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti in C.M.P.No.4752 of 2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, for fresh consideration. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of C.M.P.No.4752 of 2010 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity to the appellant. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.D.S.Thirumavalavan, Advocate, S.R.No. +1cc to Mr.C.D.Johnson, Advocate, S.R.No.38864

¶19

Crl.A.No. 572 of 2011

¶20

NA(CO) GSP(03/07/2018)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Krishnagopalan v. Arul Prakasam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnagopalan v. Arul Prakasam

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

Stellamary Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Madras Cements Ltd. Vs M.Sanjeevi

Arangasamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Yacobu Vs State by

Siva Alias Jeeva Alias Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Manikandaboopathy, Vs State Rep. by