INTEGRATED FINANCE CO Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2003-10-67
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 30,2003

INTEGRATED FINANCE CO. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed by him as early as in 1998. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused chose not to appear before the learned Magistrate. It is the case of the complainant that the accused was deliberately avoiding the process of the court. The court could not secure the presence of the accused. At an earlier stage, on the ground that the complainant was not present before court, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under S.256(1) Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused. That order of acquittal was challenged before this Court and by judgment dated 29.3.2001, in Crl. Appeal 828 of 1999, this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and directed the learned Magistrate to continue with the proceedings. It is significant to note that the said judgment produced as Annexure - I shows that the accused was served at the address "Aiswarya, Kannammoola, Thiruvananthapuram" and had appeared before this Court in person.
(2.) The learned Magistrate received back the file and continued the proceedings. Though steps were taken, the accused did not appear even thereafter. Though notices were sent in his said address, he did not receive them. It is in these circumstances that the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order - purportedly under S.258 Cr.P.C. According to the learned Magistrate, repeated process issued by the court were being returned unexecuted for the reason that the address was insufficient for execution. The learned Magistrate found fault with the complainant for not furnishing sufficient address to enable service of process on the accused. The learned Magistrate then felt that the case deserves to be closed. Fully conscious of the fact that S.258 of the Cr.P.C. cannot apply, the learned Magistrate chose to apply the principles under S.258 Cr.P.C. to the given situation. It is accordingly, that the proceedings were closed under S.258 Cr.P.C.
(3.) In this Crl.M.C., notice was sent to the respondent / accused in the very same address "Aiswarya, Kannammoola, Thiruvananthapuram". Notice has been served on him. He has not chosen to appear before court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.