Kerala High Court
Century Hire Purchase vs C.P.Subash And Another on 14 July, 2025
2025:KER:51542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1461 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2008 IN CC
NO.212 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II, MUVATTUPZHA
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTURY HIRE PURCHASE, VELLOORKUNNAM,
MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER M.S. INDUCHOODAN,
S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, MADATHIL HOUSE,
ELANGAVOM KARA, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE,
VARAPETTY.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.DILIP
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 C.P.SUBASH, CHERUVILPUTHENPURA,
AMALAGIRI P.O., MANNANAM, KOTTAYAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.ALEX M THOMBRA,SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2025, THE COURT ON 14.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :2: 2025:KER:51542
JUDGMENT
The complainant in C.C.No.212/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Muvattupuzha, has filed this appeal with the leave of this Court, challenging an order of acquittal passed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the accused, who is the 1st respondent in this appeal.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records.
3. A perusal of the records reveals that the complainant had initially approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, with a complaint alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued a summons CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :3: 2025:KER:51542 to the accused. The case was originally taken on file in the said court as C.C.505/2006. As evident from the records, the said case was subsequently transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Muvattupuzha, where it was renumbered as 212/2008. As revealed from the proceedings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, the case was posted for the appearance of the parties on 19.05.2008, which was the first posting date after the transfer. However, on 19.05.2008, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. as there was no representation for the complainant on that day.
4. While considering whether the said order is liable to be interfered, it is pertinent to note that the case was originally pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, and it was, as per the order of CJM, the same was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :4: 2025:KER:51542 Muvattupuzha. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a grievance that no proper notice of transfer was served on the parties, and it was due to this lack of intimation that the complainant failed to appear before the transferee court on the date of posting. I am not intending to go into the details regarding the question of whether there was proper service of notice of transfer to the parties. Anyhow, from a perusal of the copy of the proceedings paper of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Muvattupuzha, it is discernible that 19.05.2008 was the very first posting of the case before the transferee court, and on the said day itself, the accused was acquitted on the ground of non-appearance of the complainant. I am not oblivious of the fact that there is no illegality per se in acquitting an accused under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. due to absence of the complainant. However, the learned Magistrate ought to have adopted a more CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :5: 2025:KER:51542 pragmatic approach, especially since it was the first posting date after the transfer. Therefore, nobody could be blamed if it is found that the learned Magistrate acted somewhat hastily in passing the order of acquittal. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that on the date on which the order was passed, there was no representation for both sides, which suggests that proper and effective notice regarding the transfer and posting may not have been served on both sides. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it appears that the absence of the complainant was not deliberate or ill-motivated. It is apparent that the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order without appreciating the context of the transfer and the conduct of the complainant in the previous postings. Considering the stake of the matter involved in this case, I am of the view that it is highly necessary that the matter be decided on merits, otherwise the same will result in CRL.A NO. 1461/2008 :6: 2025:KER:51542 miscarriage of justice.
In the result, the order of acquittal dated 19.05.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Muvattupuzha in C.C. No.212/2008 under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. The complainant and the accused shall appear before the trial court on 12.08.2025. Considering the fact that this matter is of the year 2006, the learned Magistrate shall take every endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably within five months from 12.08.2025.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd