Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

D.SASIKUMAR versus MOHAMMED EKUBAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


D.SASIKUMAR v. MOHAMMED EKUBAL - CRL A No. 1888 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 11980 (4 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 1888 of 2003()

1. D.SASIKUMAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MOHAMMED EKUBAL,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :04/07/2007

O R D E R

K. THANKAPPAN, J.

CRL.A.NO.1888 OF 2003 Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the order passed in C.C.No.155/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Pathanamthitta. The order impugned has been seen passed under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal has been admitted by this Court and notice has been served on the 1st respondent. There is no appearance for the 1st respondent. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant and perused the records. As per the impugned order, the 1st respondent has been acquitted only on the ground of absence of the petitioner/appellant. The order does not show that the petitioner/appellant should have been present in the court on the posting date and it was necessitated to pass such an order only on the absence of the petitioner/appellant. It is also not discernible from the order that the trial court had applied its mind before passing the impugned order as held by this Court in the judgments reported in G.F.S. Chit & Loans (P) Ltd V. Rajesh 2006(3) KLT 825) and Don Bosco v. Partech Computers Ltd. (2005(2) (KLT 1003). CRL.A.NO.1888/2003 2 In the above circumstances, it is only proper for this Court to set aside the order and remand the case back to the trial court. Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for a fresh consideration. The trial court is directed to take up the matter afresh at the stage at which the impugned order has been passed on issuing a fresh notice to the 1st respondent. The appellant shall appear before the lower court on 18.8.2007.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

cl CRL.A.NO.1888/2003 3

K. THANKAPPAN, J.

CRL.A.NO.1888 OF 2003

JUDGMENT

4th July, 2007. CRL.A.NO.1888/2003 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.