Kerala High Court
Dr.Premsankar vs The State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 847 OF 2019
IN CC 790/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
CHAVAKKAD
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
DR.PREMSANKAR
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O K K PRASAD,NAVASREE,THEVALLI P.O,KOLLAM
BY ADVS.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ,ERNAKULAM 682031
2 M.SURENDRAN
S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,MANGATTU
HOUSE,ERAVU(D),ERAVU(V),THRISSUR 680620
3 M.R.JAYAKUMAR,
THIRUMANNUR HOUSE, MUNDATHIKODE, WADAKKANCHERY,
TRISSUR 680582
Crl.A.No.847/2019
-:2:-
4 M.GIRIJA VALLABHAN, MARUTHUR HOUSE, CHOONISSERY,
MUNDUR, THRISSUR 678592
5 P.M.SHERLY,
THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, NJERUVASSERY, ARATTUPUZHA,
THRISSUR.680562
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SMT.SRUKTHY BHAT, POOJA PANKAJ
SMT BINDU O.V-PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.847/2019
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment in
C.C.No.790/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Chavakkad. The appellant is the defacto complainant.
Respondents 2 to 5 are the accused.
2. The appellant herein filed a private complaint before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad (for short
'the Court below') against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The court
below after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C took
the complaint on file and issued process to respondent Nos. 2 to
5. The respondents entered appearance. Thereafter, the case
was posted for evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. It was
adjourned from time to time. When the case was posted on
30.3.2019, even though the complainant/appellant herein was
present, the counsel for the complainant was absent. The
complainant sought for adjournment. But the court below
Crl.A.No.847/2019
dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) of Cr.P.C as per the impugned judgment. The said
judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
3. I have heard Sri. P. Martin Jose, the learned counsel
for the appellant, Smt. Sruthy Bhat, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The proceedings paper would show that almost on all
posting dates, the appellant/complainant was physically present
before the court below. On 30.3.2019 also the complainant was
present. However, the counsel for the complainant could not be
present and the complainant sought adjournment which was
rejected by the court below. It is pertinent to note that the
accused were acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The
acquittal under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C arises only in a case
where the Magistrate, after recording evidence under Section 244
of Cr.P.C finds that the accused is not guilty. This is a case
where the complainant did not adduce evidence. Hence, I am of
the view that the acquittal of the accused under Section 255(1)
of Cr.P.C is not correct. Moreover, the court below ought to have
Crl.A.No.847/2019
give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence.
Hence, I am of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment is set aside. The court below shall take back
the case(C.C.No.790/2011) on file and proceed with the same in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
Crl.A.No.847/2019
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF B DIARY PROCEEDINGS OBTAINED
FROM JFCM, CHAVAKKAD.
