High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal disposed of with directions to restore t...

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Colour Links, Macsy Rebellow & State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.A.No. 566 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date
2012-06-12
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is disposed of: the order dated 30.4.2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi in S.T. No.22/2005 is set aside. The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on 12.07.2012, the complaint is to be restored on file, and the trial is to proceed on merit. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of with directions to restore the complaint on file and proceed with the trial on merits; expedite the trial.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S Berger Paints India Ltd., Berger Home, 1/29, Port Street, Kolkata, rep. by its Administrative Officer K. Ramohan

Respondents

  • M/S Colour Links, Paints Merchants, T.V. Thomas Memorial Buildings, A.S. Road, Alleppey
  • Mr. Macsy Rebellow, M/S Colour Links, Paints Merchants, T.V. Thomas Memorial Buildings, A.S. Road, Alleppey
  • State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri B. Gopakumar
  • • Smt. Chincy Gopakumar
  • • Sri Aswin Gopakumar
  • • Sri Anwin Gopakumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Elizabeth Mathai IdicullA
  • • Sri. Mohan Idiculla Abraham
  • • Sri. Rachel Joseph
  • • Sri. Martin D. Alumkara
  • • Sri P. M. Saneer (Public Prosecutor)
  • • Smt. Elizabeth Mathai Idiculla (R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant Berger Paints India Ltd. (complainant) challenged a judgment acquitting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi on 30.4.2005 in ST.22/2005. The complaint had originated in the Ernakulam CJM court and, due to transfers, reached Kochi. The appellant alleged that lack of representation on several posted dates and procedural gaps stemming from the transfer resulted in disposal without a reasoned merit-based decision. The appellant sought restoration of the case on file and a trial on merits, arguing that the offence involved a cheque for ₹10,327 and that a second opportunity to prosecute on merits was warranted. The respondents countered that there was no scope for settlement and that the appeal should not be allowed on this basis. The High Court noted the communication and posting gaps and relied on the guideline from Alice George (2003) 1 KLT 339 to emphasize procedural safeguards and to avoid insisting on personal presence for every posted date. It ultimately disposed of the appeal by setting aside the acquittal and directing the trial court to restore the complaint on file, proceed with the trial on merit, and expedite the proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 256(1)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Guidelines on trial procedure in NI Act cases (Alice George, Deputy Superintendent of Police) [2003(1) KLT 339]: insistence on personal presence on all dates is not mandatory; trial courts should follow due process and grant opportunities to prosecute on merit where warranted.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that though cognizance was taken in the Ernakulam CJM court and the case was later transferred to Kochi, miscommunication and gaps due to the transfer led to disposal without adjudication on merits. The complainant appeared on 18.1.2005 but the case was not called; the subsequent transfer to JFMV Kochi occurred, yet the case was disposed of on 30.4.2005. Since the cheque amount is ₹10,327, the appellant seeks one more opportunity to prosecute on merits. It is urged that procedural lapses and communication gaps necessitate restoration of the case on file and a merits-based trial, with directions to expedite.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is no scope for settlement and that the appeal cannot be entertained on such grounds. They emphasize that the trial has not been completed and that the impugned disposition was made due to lack of representation; however, they contend the case should be resolved by continuing the trial rather than allowing a fresh opportunity on appeal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Alice George Deputy Superintendent of Police2003(1) KLT 339PositiveCited to support guidelines for trial procedure and to justify not insisting on personal presence for all dates; used to permit another opportunity to prosecute on merits.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Colour Links, Macsy Rebellow & State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934 CRL.A.No. 566 of 2007 --------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DTD.30.4.2005 IN ST.22/2005 of J.M.F.C.-IV, KOCHI] APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- M/S.BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD., BERGER HOME, 1/29, PORT STREET KOLKOTTA, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER K.RAMOHAN. BY ADVS.SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS(S)/ACCUED AND STATE: -------------------------------- 1. M/S.COLOUR LINKS, PAINTS MERCHANTS, T.V.THOMAS MEMORIAL BUILDINGS, A.S.ROAD, ALLEPPEY. 2. MR.MACSY REBELLOW, M/S.COLOUR LINKS, PAINTS MERCHANTS T.V.THOMAS MEMORIAL BUILDINGS, A.S.ROAD, ALLEPPEY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM BY ADV. SRI.RACHEL JOSEPH BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.M.SANEER. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 - A ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the appellant as he is aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2005 in S.T.No.22 of 2005 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, originally, the complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam wherein cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was transferred to the present trial court. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that arrangement was made to represent the counsel for the appellant/complainant in the trial court and accordingly, the complainant has appeared in the Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 :-2-: Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi on 18.1.2005, but on that date, the case was not called in that court. It is subsequently came to know that actually the case was transferred to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate - IV, Kochi, but in the meanwhile the case was disposed of by the trial court on 30.4.2005. Learned counsel submitted that as the cheque in question covers an amount of `10,327/-, one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. Counsel for the respondents submitted that though the appeal was adjourned to find out the possibility of settlement, there is no scope for any settlement. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 5. Though learned counsel for the appellant submitted about the posting of the case on 18.1.2005 and about the appearance of the complainant etc. in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II on 18.1.2005, from the impugned order, it appears that though in the Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 :-3-: trial court, the case was posted on 18.1.2005, it was adjourned to 9.3.2005 as there was no representation on 18.1.2005. From the order, it is also discernible that again the case was adjourned to 27.4.2005, from 9.3.2005. Again the case was adjourned to the date of the impugned order from 27.4.2005, but on that day also there was no representation for the complainant and the complainant was absent. From the above oder, it appears that the learned Magistrate was forced to issue the impugned order as there was no representation for the complainant and the complainant was not present. But, it is relevant to note that though the court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act on the basis of the complaint preferred by the appellant connected with the dishonour of cheque for `.10,327/-, there is no decision on merit. It appears that connected with the transfer of cases from the courts at Ernakulam to the court at Kochi, several incidents were reported regarding the disposal of case under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. either due to the Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 :-4-: absence of the complainant or for non-representation and the same were due to the failure in taking proper precautionary steps and due to communication gap. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that this v. Court, in the decision reported in **Alice George Deputy Superintendent of Police** [2003(1) KLT 339], issued certain guidelines to be followed by the trial court during the trial of the cases pending before it. It has been held that insistence on personal presence of the accused and the complainant on all dates of posting irrespective of nature and purpose could not be permitted or tolerated. In the above circumstances, according to me, it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to prosecute the matter on merit. In the result, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order dated 30.4.2005 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi in S.T.No.22 of 2005. Accordingly, the appellant/ complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on **12.07.2012** on which Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 :-5-: date, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. As the case pertains to the year 2005, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above. **V.K.MOHANAN,Judge.** MBS/ Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 :-6-: **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . CRL.A.No. 434 OF 2003 **JUDGMENT** Crl.A.No. 566 of 2007 :-7-: Dated:11.11.2011