Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MIX MATCH TEXTILES versus VINOD KUTTIPURATH AND ANR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S MIX MATCH TEXTILES v. VINOD KUTTIPURATH and Anr - CRL A No. 68 of 2000(A) [2007] RD-KL 3883 (21 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 68 of 2000(A)

1. M/S MIX MATCH TEXTILES
... Petitioner

Vs

1. VINOD KUTTIPURATH & ANOTHER
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY

Dated :21/02/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY, J.

Crl. Appeal No. 68 of 2000

Dated this the 21st day of February, 2007

Judgment This appeal is filed by the complainant who filed a petition under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, accused is a friend of the complainant. He purchased some textile goods on 23.5.1995 for Rs.8,950/- and Rs.3,000/- was paid on the same day and cheque dated 25.6.1995 was issued for Rs.5,950/-. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. When the case was posted before the trial court after recording the sworn-in statement, the complainant was absent on most of the posting dates. Therefore, the accused was acquitted under section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The following is the order of the trial court:

"2. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the complaint was taken on file as the instant case and summons was ordered to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant was absent, almost on all hearing dates. Today also, the complainant is absent. Hence the accused is acquitted u/s. 256 Cr. P.C. " I fully agree with the court below. Acquittal of the Crl.A.No.68/2000 2 accused for absence of the complainant cannot be stated to be illegal warranting interference by the appellate court. Even otherwise, notice was ordered as early as on 1.2.2000, but, so far, no effective steps were taken to cure the defect and serve notice to the respondent and without notice to the respondent/accused, appeal cannot be allowed and order of acquittal cannot be set aside. Even otherwise, since there is no prima facie case in the appeal, appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY

(JUDGE)

vaa Crl.A.No.68/2000 3

J.B.Koshy, J.

Crl. A. No.68 of 2000 Judgment 21-2-2007


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.