Prasanth Andrews vs Ayyappan Pillai
2025 Latest Caselaw 8496 Ker

Kerala High Court

Prasanth Andrews vs Ayyappan Pillai on 9 September, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

O.P.(Crl.) No.609 of 2025
                                 1



                                                  2025:KER:66649

                                                 "CR"
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947

                      OP(CRL.) NO. 609 OF 2025

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.789 OF 2023

OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            PRASANTH ANDREWS
            AGED 37 YEARS
            S/O ANDRES,MALIYEKKAL VERTHODEN, ANCHERICHIRA,
            KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR @35/147,MUNDADAN
            TOWER,PALLIKULAM ROAD,THRISSUR,PIN-682035,
            PIN - 680006

           BY ADVS.
           SHRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
           SMT.SHYLA SHAFFEQ
           SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE
           SRI.M.B.SOORI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
           AYYAPPAN PILLAI
           AGED 76 YEARS
           S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. HINDUSTAN
           AGENCIES RESIDING AT 'MATHILAKAM', JAYANAGAR,
           MARADU P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM
           DISTRICT, PIN - 682304
     THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(Crl.) No.609 of 2025
                                 2



                                                      2025:KER:66649

                                                              "CR"

                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------
                      O.P.(Crl) No.609 of 2025
                    -------------------------------
                              th
             Dated this the 9 day of September, 2025



                            JUDGMENT

It is true that the judiciary is facing docket explosions, and

every judicial officer should strive to dispose of cases without

adjourning cases at the instance of parties for frivolous reasons.

But, while trying to dispose of the cases, the court should bear in

mind that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to

be done. It emphasises the importance of transparency and

perception in the administration of justice. Even if a case is

dismissed or allowed, parties should leave the court premises

with a feeling that they obtained a fair chance to contest their

case. Then only the system will prevail. That is the success of the

justice delivery system.

2. The petitioner is an accused in ST No.789 of 2023 on

the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (E&O)

2025:KER:66649

Ernakulam. It was a prosecution initiated under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Ext.P1 is the complaint.

The trial in the above case started on 04.02.2025, and the

complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P61 were marked

on the side of the complainant. After the closure of evidence of

the complainant and during the examination of the petitioner

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner explained that the

subject cheques in question were originally handed over to one

Shivasubramaniam. It is the case of the petitioner that the

complainant, after obtaining the cheque from Shivasubramaniam,

filled it and presented the cheque, which resulted in the initiation

of the present prosecution. Shivasubramaniam was summoned

and examined as DW1. During the said examination, it is

submitted that printouts of the screenshots of WhatsApp chat

between the petitioner and DW1 were shown to DW1. DW1

admitted the phone number on the said printout. The printouts of

the screenshots of the WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and

DW1 were not marked is the grievance of the petitioner. Hence,

on 05.08.2025, when the case was posted for hearing, the

2025:KER:66649

petitioner filed Ext.P2 application to reopen the evidence for the

purpose of marking the printouts of the screenshots of the

WhatsApp chat. Ext.P2(a) is produced herein as the printouts of

the screenshots of the WhatsApp chat.

3. According to the petitioner, on 05.08.2025, the

learned Magistrate, without considering Ext.P2, proceeded with

the hearing and the case was posted to 07.08.2025 for further

hearing. On 07.08.2025, the learned Magistrate posted the case

to 12.08.2025 for judgment without passing any orders in Ext.P2.

Hence, the petitioner filed O.P.(Crl.) No.539 of 2025 before this

Court, which resulted in the Ext.P3 judgment. Now the grievance

of the petitioner is that, as directed by this court, the Ext.P2

application was considered by the learned Magistrate on

08.09.2025 and dismissed that application at 3.15 p.m. on that

day, and the case was posted to 09.09.2025 for judgment. The

petitioner submitted that he filed an application for a certified

copy as evidenced by Ext.P4, on 08.09.2025 itself. But without

issuing a certified copy, the learned Magistrate is going to deliver

the judgment today, is the grievance. This original petition was

2025:KER:66649

considered by this Court at 10:25 a.m. on 09.09.2025.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The way in which this original petition is going to be

disposed of, I am of the opinion that no notice is necessary to the

respondent. If the respondent is aggrieved by any of the

directions issued in this judgment, the respondent is free to file a

review petition.

6. This Court, as per the Ext.P3 judgment, issued the

following direction:

"I) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (E&O), Ernakulam is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2, if it is pending as on today, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment."

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 was

dismissed yesterday (08.08.2025), and without serving a copy of

the order, the case is posted for judgment today (09.09.2025) at

11:00 a.m. It is clear that the petitioner is very much interested

in the outcome of the Ext P2 petition, and that is why he

2025:KER:66649

approached this court earlier, which resulted in the Ext P3

judgment. If Ext. P2 is dismissed, the court ought to have issued

a copy of the order immediately. I am dissatisfied with the way in

which the learned Magistrate shows haste in disposing of this

case. As I mentioned earlier, justice should not only be done but

should also appear to be done. Whether this Court will interfere

with the order passed in Ext.P2 is a different matter. When the

petitioner filed an application and there was a delay in passing

orders on it, the petitioner approached this Court, and this Court

directed that the said application be disposed of immediately. In

such circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have

taken such haste to dispose of the main case itself by dismissing

the petition yesterday and posting the case for judgment today.

This practice is not proper. Heaven will not fall down if the

pronouncement of the final verdict is made after serving a copy

of the order passed in Ext. P2.

8. I am of the considered opinion that the order passed

in Ext.P2 should be given to the petitioner within three days, and

the pronouncement of the judgment should be deferred for a

2025:KER:66649

period of two weeks. The petitioner is free to file an affidavit

before the jurisdictional court about this order, and the learned

Magistrate shall defer the pronouncement of judgment. The

Registry will also inform the office of the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate (E&O) Ernakulam over the phone and communicate to

the learned magistrate that the judgment shall not be

pronounced today in ST No.789 of 2023.

Therefore, this original petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

1. The certified copy of the order passed in Ext.P2 shall

be served to the petitioner within three days from

today, if a proper application for the same is filed.

2. The pronouncement of the judgment in ST No.789 of

2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O)

Ernakulam is deferred for a period of two weeks from

today.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

SMF

2025:KER:66649

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 609/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5/12/2023 ON THE FILE OF ACJM(EO),ERNAKUALM Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CRL MP 3450/2025 DATED 05/08/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED Exhibit P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED WITH AFFIDAVIT U/S 63 OF BHARATHEEYA SAKSHYA ADHINYAM,2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP(CRL)539/2025 DATED 27.08.2025 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8/9/2025 FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN EXHIBIT P2 CRL MP