Sreeveerabhadra Traders vs Ckm Traders

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 07, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1366446

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1366446
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Jul 07, 2023
Case Number: CRL.A/522/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sreeveerabhadra Traders

Respondent

Ckm Traders

Excerpt

.....is the complainant before the courtbelow and s.t no.114/2019 is a prosecution launched by him for an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (for short, ‘the ni act’) on the basis of a complaint filed under section 142 ni act. by the impugned judgment, the court below dismissed the complaint under section 256 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short ‘cr.p.c’) and acquitted the accused.3. it is contended by the learned counsel that theaccused entered appeared before the court below on 03.01.2019 and on 03.05.2019, the matter was referred for mediation. the mediation failed and the case was returned to the court. on 29.07.2019, the court on coming to know that the mediation failed, posted the case for evidence to 06.09.2019. on 06.09.2019, the complainant was presentand the court adjourned the case to 17.10.2019. on 17.10.2019, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant alongwith documents to be marked in evidence. on 17.10.2019, the complainant was present but the accusedwas absent. in view of the fixation of the marriage of the daughter of the complainant on 20.10.2019, cross examination was sought to be adjourned and it was scheduled to be held on 31.10.2019. on that date, complainant was represented. copies of the documentsproposed to be relied on by the complainant were directed to be served on the accused.4. the case was posted further to 29.11.2019. on 29.11.2019, complainant was present and he sought for time for production of two additional documents. accordingly, the case was adjourned to 18.01.2020 for evidence. on 18.01.2020, documents were produced and the case wasfurther adjourned to 05.03.2020 for evidence. on 05.03.2020, the complainant was present and the case was adjourned by the court to 27.04.2020 for want of time. from 21.04.2020, the case was adjourned by notification due to covid-19.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 522 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2021 IN S.T.NO.114/2019 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-IV, KOLLAM APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: SREEVEERABHADRA TRADERS, DOOR NO.3084, NEW BLACK, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.V.PREMCHAND SMT.SURYA MOHAN P. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: 1 CKM TRADERS, RICE MERCHANT, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 524. 2 SHAHUL HASSAN, POOZHANKULANTHINTE KIZHAKKATHIL, PALAKKAL, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM 690 524. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH R3 BY SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07th day of July, 2023 This appeal is directed against a judgment passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kollam (for short, ‘the court below’) on 29.03.2021 in S.T No.114 of 2019.

2. The appellant is the complainant before the court

below and S.T No.114/2019 is a prosecution launched by him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’) on the basis of a complaint filed under Section 142 NI Act. By the impugned judgment, the court below dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and acquitted the accused.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the

accused entered appeared before the court below on 03.01.2019 and on 03.05.2019, the matter was referred for mediation. The mediation failed and the case was returned to the court. On 29.07.2019, the court on coming to know that the mediation failed, posted the case for evidence to 06.09.2019. On 06.09.2019, the complainant was present

and the court adjourned the case to 17.10.2019. On 17.10.2019, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant alongwith documents to be marked in evidence. On 17.10.2019, the complainant was present but the accused

was absent.       In view of the fixation of the marriage of the
daughter     of    the    complainant         on     20.10.2019,       cross
examination       was    sought     to   be   adjourned         and   it was
scheduled to be held on 31.10.2019.                           On that date,
complainant was represented.              Copies of the documents

proposed to be relied on by the complainant were directed to be served on the accused.

4. The case was posted further to 29.11.2019. On 29.11.2019, complainant was present and he sought for time for production of two additional documents. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 18.01.2020 for evidence. On 18.01.2020, documents were produced and the case was

further adjourned to 05.03.2020 for evidence. On 05.03.2020, the complainant was present and the case was adjourned By the court to 27.04.2020 for want of time. From 21.04.2020, the case was adjourned by notification due to Covid-19 pandemic till 29.01.2021. On 29.01.2021, the complainant was represented and the case was posted for evidence to 01.03.2021 for evidence. On 01.03.2021, the complainant was absent and was represented. Thereupon, the court below adjourned the case to 29.03.2021 for evidence. On 29.03.2021, the complainant was absent. He was also not represented and therefore, the court below passed the impugned judgment.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal for the reason that enough opportunity had already been granted to the complainant and he failed to avail any of those.

6. It is noticed that most of the postings immediately prior to passing of the judgment was during the period when Covid-19 pandemic was prevailing. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to grant one more opportunity to contest his case on merits.

7. For the purpose, appeal stands allowed, the impugned judgment stands set aside. Both parties to the appeal shall make their presence available before the court

below on 26.07.2023. When the parties make their appearance on the day, the court below shall schedule the examination of the complainant to a date convenient to both parties. The court below shall grant only a single opportunity is granted to the complainant for adducing evidence. The accused shall also be granted with sufficient opportunity to cross examine the complainant. At any rate, the evidence shall be completed and ST No.114/2019 shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties there. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Sreeveerabhadra Traders vs Ckm Traders Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph