Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SEBASTIAN JOSEPH versus R.HARIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SEBASTIAN JOSEPH v. R.HARIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR - CRL A No. 1726 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 3174 (12 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 1726 of 2006()

1. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. R.HARIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON

For Respondent :SRI.K.SURESH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :12/02/2007

O R D E R

K. Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A. No. 1726 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

Complainant in S.T.No.924/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottayam is the appellant. The complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court passed the impugned order acquitting the 1st respondent under section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. stating that the appellant absent and there was no appearance on his behalf. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is no in accordance with the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C. and the dictum laid down in a decision of this Court reported in Don Bosco V. Partech Computers Ltd. (2005(2) KLT 1003) and a decision of the Apex Court reported in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. V. Kesavanad (1998(1) KLT

179.

2. A reading of the impugned order would show that the trial court has not complied with the provisions of section 256 Cr.P.C. Though the trial court stated that the appellant had given one more chance to adduce evidence, but the order would not show that the personal appearance of the appellant is necessary. In the decision reported in Donbosco's case it is held that "when the presence of the complainant was quite unnecessary Crl.A.1726/2006 2 and the Magistrate could proceed with the case by adjourning the same even if there was no representation from the counsel, the Magistrate should have adjourned the case, particularly when steps under Ss.82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were pending against the accused." In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (Supra) the Apex Court held that "if the presence of the complainant on that day was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section".

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case from the stage at which the impugned order has been passed. K.Thankappan, Judge. mn.

K. Thankappan,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A.No. /200
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment


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.