High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 03 KL CK 0039

Srteeniketan Centre for Social and DR. N. Raveendran vs Sri. D. Raju, Aswathymana and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 March 2007

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Thankappan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal L.P. No. 127 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 341 words

K. Thankappan, J.—This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment in C.C. No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate''s Court, Paravur.

2.

The above Calendar Case was taken on file on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that respondents 1 to 11 committed offence punishable u/s 500 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The court below took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to respondents 1 to 11 and on their appearance the case was posted for evidence. Though the case was posted on various occasions, the appellant - complainant remained continuously absent. The case was finally posted to 19.4.2006 on which day also the appellant was absent. The learned Magistrate considered the application filed for excusing the absence of the petitioner, but found the same devoid of merit and hence acquitted the accused u/s 256(1) Cr.P.C.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have given some more time to the petitioner to adduce evidence. As per Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has the power to acquit the accused in the absence of the complainant. The above section was considered by this Court in the decisions reported in Don Bosco v. Partech Computers Ltd. 2005(2) 1003 and G.F.S. Chits and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. V.K. Rajesh and Another, . In the above two judgments, this Court had taken the view that it is open for the court below to acquit an accused in the absence of the complainant only if the court finds that the presence of the complainant was essential on that day for the progress of the case. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand 1998 (1) KLT 179 (S.C.). Considering the principles laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment requires no interference.

The Crl. Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.