High Court Kerala High Court

M. Raghavan Nambiar vs Ashraf on 24 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
M. Raghavan Nambiar vs Ashraf on 24 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 19 of 2003()


1. M. RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASHRAF, BADARIYA CUT PIECE CENTRE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :24/09/2007

 O R D E R
                            K.THANKAPPAN, J.
                    ----------------------------------------------
                      CRL. APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2003
                    ----------------------------------------------

                 Dated this the 24th day of September, 2007

                                  JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C. No.48 of 2002 on

the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court III, Kannur.

2. The appellant filed the complaint before the court below alleging

that the first respondent – accused committed offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court below

took cognizance of the complaint, served notice on the accused and posted

the case to 2.7.2002. On 2.7.2002, finding that the complainant was

absent, the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.

3. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that

originally the complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court, Payyannur and subsequently the case was made over to

CRL.APPEAL NO.19/2003 2

the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court III, Kannur. Learned counsel

submits that though the transfer of the case was notified on the notice

board, it was without notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant in

the trial court and that the clerk of the counsel also failed to note the same.

Counsel further submits that the posting of the case was also without

notice to the appellant and hence, the appellant – complainant could not

appear before the trial court.

5. A reading of the impugned order would show that the learned

trial Magistrate had not complied with the dictum laid down by this Court

in the decisions reported in Don Bosco v. Partech Computers, 2005(2)

K.L.T. 1003 and G.F.S. Chit & Loans (P) Ltd. v. Rajesh, 2006(3)

K.L.T. 825. In the above two judgments, this Court had categorically

held that unmerited disposal of complaints will affect dispensation of

justice. Further, the Apex Court in the decision reported in Associated

Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand, 1998(1) K.L.T. 179 (SC) held that on

order under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. shall be passed only under the

following circumstances:

“First is, if the court thinks that in a
situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then
the magistrate shall not acquit the accused.
Second is, when the magistrate considers that
personal attendance of the complainant is not

CRL.APPEAL NO.19/2003 3

necessary on that day the magistrate has the
power to dispense with his attendance and
proceed with the case. When the court notices
that the complainant is absent on a particular day
the court must consider whether personal
attendance of the complainant is essential on that
day for the progress of the case and also whether
the situation does not justify the case being
adjourned to another date due to any other
reason. If the situation does not justify the case
being adjourned the court is free to dismiss the
complaint and acquit the accused. But 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. The
discretion must therefore, be exercised judicially
and fairly without impairing the cause of
administration of criminal justice.”

6. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the

order of the trial court is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is

accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh

disposal as per law.

The Crl. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. The parties shall

appear before the trial court on 17.11.2007.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/

CRL.APPEAL NO.19/2003 4

K. THANKAPPAN, J.

CRL.A. NO.19/2003

JUDGMENT

24th SEPTEMBER, 2007