Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. BHAVANA CINEMA versus MR. SIYAD KOKER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. BHAVANA CINEMA v. MR. SIYAD KOKER - CRL A No. 2071 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 2935 (8 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 2071 of 2006()

1. M/S. BHAVANA CINEMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MR. SIYAD KOKER,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :08/02/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl. Appeal No. 2071 of 2006 (A)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 8th day of February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The complainant in S.T.No.144/2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kochi, is the appellant. The complaint was preferred under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the first respondent, the accused. It was dismissed for default for the non appearance of the complainant. Hence, on obtaining leave, this appeal is preferred.

2. The learned Magistrate, dismissed the case due to the non appearance of the complainant on three occasions. The counsel for the appellant, though, had not produced the certified copy of the proceedings paper of the court below, submits that the date of posting of the case, 05/05/2006, was noted wrongly by the clerk of the advocate who was appearing before the court below, as 05/08/2006, and, therefore, there was no appearance on that day as well as the next posting date, 15/06/2006. Nevertheless, a representation was made on the Crl.A No.2071/2006 (A) 2 subsequent posting date, 03/08/2006, and the case got adjourned to 01/09/2006. But, because of the traffic block, the counsel could not appear, although, the complainant was ready to adduce evidence. Hence, the impugned order was passed, dismissing the complaint. The counsel prays for an opportunity.

3. The service was complete in respect of the first respondent, the accused. But, there is no appearance. I have disposed of Crl.A.No.2135/2006, today, in respect of the very same appellant. The counsel submits that four cases have been dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the same day, relating to the complainant as well as the respondent accused.

4. In the above facts situation, I set aside the impugned order dated 01/09/2006 and restore S.T.No.144/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kochi. The parties shall appear before the court below on 12/03/2007. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of S.T.No.144/2005, within two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The appeal is allowed as above. (J.M.JAMES) Judge ms


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.