The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. for default and non-prosecution. The appellant failed to appear despite notices and withdrawal of counsel, leading the court to conclude he was not interested in continuing the case.
Criminal Appeal No.165/2010 dismissed for default/non-prosecution.
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 10.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.A.No.165/2010
Bhawarlal Gothi
represented by his son and Power
of Attorney Ajeet Kumar Gothi
... Appellant/Complainant
Vs
1.M/s.Southern Shipping Corporation [Pvt]
Ltd., represented by Managing Director
P.R.Balasubramanian
No.100/1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2.Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian
Managing Director,
M/s.Southern Shipping Corpo [Pvt] Ltd
No.7, First Trust Link Street,
Mandaivelipakkam, Chennai 600 028.
3.Mr.T.R.Raman, Director
M/s. Southern Shipping Corporation [Pvt] Ltd
Lattice Bridge Road, Geethanjali Colony,
Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041.
... Respondents/A1 to A3
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378[4] Cr.P.C., to set aside the acquittal of the respondents by the order passed in STC.No.1505/2007 on 14.07.2009 by the learned Judge, XI Small Causes Court, Chennai and dispose of the case according to law.
For Appellant : No appearance For R3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The appellant/complainant is Bhawarlal Gothi and he is represented by his son and Power of Attorney Ajeet Kumar Gothi. The appeal has been listed before this Court on 18.01.2018 and on that day, Mr.N.Ranganathan and Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsels appearing for the appellant/complainant had represented that they have withdrawn their Memo of Appearance and recording the withdrawal, this Court had directed the Registry to send notice to the appellant/complainant returnable by four weeks. Accordingly, the Registry had taken notice on the appellant/complainant and the notice was attempted to be served by Mr.P.Narendran, Junior Bailiff of the Small Causes Court, Chennai. He, on 13.02.2018, had gone to the address of the appellant/complainant and enquired about him and he had been informed by one Chakarapani, Manager that the appellant/complainant would not come on 13.02.2018 and the Bailiff was asked to come on the next day, i.e., 14.02.2018. Once again on 14.02.2018, when the Bailiff had gone to the address of the appellant/complainant and in his presence, the Manager had contacted the appellant/complainant and the Bailiff was informed that the appellant/complainant would not come and the Manager had refused to receive the notice.
2 Thereafter, the case has been listed before this Court on 23.11.2018 and the names of the appellant/complainant as well as the learned counsel were printed in the cause list. Even on that day, there was no representation. Though this Court had directed the Registry to post the appeal under the caption ''for dismissal'' on 27.11.2018., it had not been listed on 27.11.2018 and the same had been listed on 07.06.2019. Even on 07.06.2019, there was no representation for the appellant/complainant and this Court had directed the appeal to be listed today [10.06.2019] under the caption ''for dismissal''.
3 Even today, there is no representation for the appellant/complainant. Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel who had represented the appellant/complainant earlier, submitted today before this Court that his senior, Mr.N.Ranganathan, learned counsel passed away and he would also submit that pendency of the appeal and the withdrawal of the Memo of Appearance had been informed to the appellant/complainant. Further, despite notice from this Court, the appellant/complainant had neither appeared nor engaged a counsel to represent him.
4 This Court is of the opinion that the appellant/complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case any further. Hence, the criminal appeal is dismissed for default/non prosecution.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To:
1.The XI Judge
Small Causes Court
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.A.No.165/2010
kk[co]
srg 01/07/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to dismiss the criminal appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. due to default and non-prosecution by the appellant.
Whether the appellant is interested in prosecuting the appeal following non-appearance despite notices.
Bhawarlal Gothi
M/s.Southern Shipping Corporation [Pvt] Ltd.
Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian
Mr.T.R.Raman
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
