Sree Gokulam Chit And Finance Company Private Limited v. Shajeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/22ND KARTHIKA, 1937 CRL.A.No. 980 of 2015 () ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 255/2013 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DATED 13.05.2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 266/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-09-2015 APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------- SREE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED HEAD OFFICE AT SREE GOKULAM TOWER NO.66, ARCOT ROAD CHENNAI-600 024 REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.RAMANAN WORKING AS LEGAL CLERK IN THE DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT KOLLAM NOW REPRESENTED BY IT'S LEGAL CLERK MR.P.PRAMOD. BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE :
---------------------------------
1. SHAJEER S/O. SAINUDEEN, FATHIMUTHU MANZIL, THEJAS NAGAR-173 VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-691 010.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.N.HASKAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.R.RAJEEV R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SMT M G LISHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
============================== Crl.A.No.980 of 2015 ============================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
The appellant/company instituted a complaint invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the strength of a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- which was dishonoured. After the appearance of the accused, there were several postings thereafter. It appears that on the last but one posting date, neither there was representation nor the complainant was present. Hence, notice was issued to the counsel for the complainant. In spite of the above notice, the complainant did not turn up. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. This is assailed in this appeal. 2.
Notice was served on the first respondent who has not appeared to contest the proceeding. Heard and examined the records.
3.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant was absent on 13.05.2015 and also on the previous posting date. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though a notice of posting the case was served on the counsel, he failed to communicate it to the complainant and consequently, both were absent on that day. In the above circumstance, the Court, which had granted sufficient
Crl.A.980/15 opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the matter, cannot be found fault with and have given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused by a detailed order.
4.
However, it is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed in the year 2013. The complainant had been prosecuting the matter till the date of its dismissal except for the last posting dates on which, complainant remained absent. Having regard to this fact and also the amount involved, I feel that one more opportunity can be granted to the complainant to prosecute the case. To enable this, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below to give one more opportunity to the complainant to prosecute his case. Both sides shall appear before the court below on 22.12.2015. In the event of the accused remaining absent, the court below shall issue fresh summons to him to procure his presence, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge Sbna