CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Prakasan K., Aged 44 Years vs P.Sidharthan, Aged 48 Yea

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 March 2018 · Citation: (2018) 03 KL CK 0102

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.Sudheendra Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 256(1)
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 54 Of 2016 In Criminal Leave Petition No. 493 Of 2015
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 354 words
1.

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.21 of 2012 on the files of the court below.

2.

The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent herein before the court below alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On 8.11.2012, the appellant was not present before the court below. There was also no representation for the appellant before the court below on that day. In the said circumstances, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, this appeal has been filed by the complainant after obtaining special leave from this court.

3.

Heard.

4.

It has been submitted by the learned advocates on both sides that on 30.10.2012, the case was posted to the Lok Adalath on 7.11.2012. On the next day, the case was posted before the court below. On that day, the complainant was not present before the court below. The complainant was also not present in the Lok Adalath on 7.11.2012. Therefore, the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. No reason had been stated by the learned Magistrate as to why the case could not have been adjourned to some other day when the complainant was not having representation before the court on 8.11.2012. It is also not stated in the order impugned that the presence of the complainant was necessary on 8.11.2012 for the progress of the case. In view of the above reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct and consequently, the same cannot be sustained.

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside order dated 8.11.2012 in C.C. No.21 of 2012 acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and the court below is directed to dispose of C.C. No.21 of 2012, in accordance with law. The proceedings of the court below shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the acquittal of the accused on 8.11.2012. The parties shall appear before the court below on 20.4.18 without further notice.