K. THANKAPPAN v. Partech Computers Ltd. (2005(2) KLT1003) and G.F.S Chit & Loans (P) Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 82, 83, 256, 256(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Once steps have been taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of the trial court to get the presence of the accused before the court. Hence, absence of the CRL.A.NO.952/072appellant cannot be taken as a…
- Para 33. In the circumstances, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for a fresh consideration on issuing fresh steps to get the presence of the accused. The appellant shall appear before the court below without…
Judgment
K. THANKAPPAN, J.------------------------------------------CRL.A.NO.952 OF 2007------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007.JUDGMENTThe learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainantsubmits that the order impugned has been passed under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C by which the accused was acquitted for the absence of the complainant/appellant before the court below. A reading of the order impugned would show that the respondents/accused had never appeared before the court in spite of the summons received by them. However, the court below had taken steps to serve notice to therespondents/accused under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of CriminalProcedure and the case was posted on 10.10.2006. But on that day, the appellant/complainant did not appear before the court. Then the case was posted for the next day namely on 11.10.2006. On11.10.2006 also the appellant did not appear. Hence, the order impugned has been passed.
Once steps have been taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of the trial court to get the presence of the accused before the court. Hence, absence of the CRL.A.NO.952/072appellant cannot be taken as a ground to pass an order under Section256(1) of the Code. Apart from that, the court below had not considered the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in Don Bosco v. Partech Computers Ltd. (2005(2) KLT1003) and G.F.S Chit & Loans (P) Ltd. v. Rajesh (2006(3) KLT 825)and also the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AssociatedCement Co.Ltd. v. Keshvanand (1998 (1) KLT 179 (SC). In the above three judgments, this Court as well as the Apex Court had held that the trial court shall not invoke the provisions of Section 256 of the Cr.P.C without applying its mind.
In the circumstances, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for a fresh consideration on issuing fresh steps to get the presence of the accused. The appellant shall appear before the court below without fail on 28.7.2007. The appellant is also directed to co-operate with the court to take out all possible steps to issue notice to the respondents as per the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ordered accordingly.K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.cl CRL.A.NO.952/073
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 83, 256, 256(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Jun 2007. The bench was K THANKAPPAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.