M/S.Balaji Oil Industries (P) Ltd vs A/Srinivasa Babu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1157 Mad

                                                                                      CRL.A.No.198 of 2015


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 30.01.2023

                                                                CORAM:

                                        THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                       Crl.A.No.198 of 2015

                     M/s.Balaji Oil Industries (P) Ltd.,
                     by its Manager Feroze,
                     No.39, 2nd Main Road,
                     Sipcot Industrial Complex,
                     Ranipet.                            ..                   Appellant/complainant

                                                                  Versus
                     A/Srinivasa Babu
                     Propertier of Srinu Mills,
                     Panrutti.                             ...                Respondent/accused.

                                  Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
                     Procedure to set aside the judgment made in S.T.C.No.1588 of 2011 dated
                     26.12.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Ranipet, Vellore District
                     (Conferment of Criminal Jurisdiction) and restore.


                                       For Appellant        :     Mr.K.Myilsamy

                                       For Respondent       :     No appearance




                     Page No.1 of 6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       CRL.A.No.198 of 2015


                                                           JUDGEMENT

The appeal has been preferred to challenge the impugned judgment of

acquittal dated 26.12.2014 made in STC.No.1588 of 2011 on the file of the

learned District Munsif Ranipet, Vellore District.

2.The appellant is the complainant who have filed the complaint against

the respondent for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act-

1881. Since the respondent / accused did not make his appearance before the

trial Court, Non Bailable Warrant was issued and it was pending for a long

time. But when the matter was posted on 28.10.2013, 21.02.2014 and

20.06.2014, the complainant was also not present and hence, the complaint

was dismissed for default and the accused was acquitted. Consequently the

Non Bailable Warrant was recalled and the accused was acquitted.

3.Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the materials available on record. Though a legal aid counsel has

been appointed for the respondent, however she is not present today.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case of

the non appearance of the accused, the case could not be progressed and the

petitioner without knowing the stage of the case remained absent and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.No.198 of 2015

order of the acquittal has been passed not on merits. The learned counsel for

the appellant further submitted that only when the above judgment is set

aside, the appellant can have an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

5.The records would show that the case was filed in the year 2011 and

the impugned cheque is said to have been issued by the respondent for a sum

of Rs.14,05,300/-. Due to non appearance of the respondent /accused, the

Non Bailable Warrant was issued but the same remained un-executed from

the year 2013 onwards.

6.The learned trial Judge without directing the jurisdiction police to

execute the Non Bailable Warrant had chosen to dismiss the complaint for

default of the complainant to make his appearance. Even if the complainant

made his appearance when the Non Bailable Warrant was pending against the

accused, the case could not have got progressed and the complainant could

not have been examined as a witness. Because of the default on the part of

the respondent /accused, the appellant /complainant was careless and he did

not appear before the Court. However the appellant /complainant could have

requested the court through his counsel to get the Non Bailable Warrant

executed through the jurisdictional police. Since the absence of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.No.198 of 2015

complainant is not willful and the circumstances of the case does not warrant

dismissal for default on the part of the appellant, I feel an opportunity should

be given to him to contest the case on merits.

With the above stated reasons, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the

order of the learned District Munsif, Ranipet, Vellore District dated

26.12.2014 made in STC.No.1588 of 2011 is set aside. The learned trial

Judge is directed to issue fresh Non Bailable Warrant to secure the accused

with direction to the jurisdictional police station to secure and produce the

accused before the Court.

30.01.2023 Index: Yes/No jrs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.No.198 of 2015

To:

1. The District Munsif Ranipet, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.No.198 of 2015

R.N.MANJULA, J.,

jrs

Crl.A.No.198 of 2015

30.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis