Single J.M. dismissed the criminal appeal against acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The appellant failed to appear at trial without valid medical proof, causing delay. The High Court held the acquittal had no illegality or perversity.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; order of acquittal by the trial court sustained.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :11.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
CRL.A.645 of 2009
M.Prabakaran .. Appellant/Complainant Vs P.Kailasam .. Respondent/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order of the acquittal in S.T.C.No.1074 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, dated 23.07.2009 and restore the same.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Haribabu(Legal Aid Counsel) For Respondent :Ms.S.Bhuvaneswari Mr.M.Balasubramanian J U D G M E N T
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the appellant. Documents perused. This appeal is pending from the year 2009. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been present before this Court for representing the case of the appellant. Even after sending the notice, nobody is present before this Court for submitting the case of the appellant. So, this Court has appointed Mr.Hari Babu as legal aid counsel for engaging the case of the appellant.
The respondent herein received a sum of Rs.70,000/(Rupees Seventy Thousands only) from the appellant/complainant agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In order to repay the same on 01.10.2007 the respondent issued a post dated cheque dated 18.10.2007 for Rs.70,000/- (Seventy Thousands only) drawn in favour of the complainant bearing No.3430 of Vengarai Primary Agricultural CoOperative Bank Limited, Vengarai Branch and got back the promissory note.
" 9. ... ... ... Therefore, the order cannot be said to be one passed against law. The 3rd ground alleged is that the Court below failed to see that the complainant was unable to attend the Court on 26.08.2011 due to his sudden illness. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant was in-disposed and he was not in a position to come to the court and a prayer for adjournment of the case to a future date was made. In the absence of any such representation, the appellant/accused cannot expect the Court to imagine that the complainant would have been laid up with illness. Hence, the 1st and 3rd grounds are bound to be rejected as untenable.
CRL.A.645 of 2009
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act should be allowed in view of the appellant's unexplained delay and lack of medical proof for absence during trial.
Whether the trial court order of acquittal due to absence of complainant was legal, erroneous, perverse or an apparent perversity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madurai Bench judgment before Madras High CourtExplained¶17
Crl.A(MD).No.313 of 2011 dated 15.03.2012
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Prabakaran
P. Kailasam
R. Pongippaan
M. Balasubramanian J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R. Pongippaan and M. Balasubramanian J
Parties & counsel
