9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint stating that the accused owed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to her. For discharging the said amount, a cheque was given by the accused. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient". Thereafter, notice was issued; calling upon him to make the payment and the same was served on the accused. The accused has not given any reply. Hence, the complaint was filed. 5. The learned Trial Judge noted that the complainant after her examination was not subjected for cross-examination and she remained absent on subsequent dates. In spite of sufficient opportunity given to her, on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal also reiterate the oral submissions that the Trial Judge ought not to have expunged the evidence and proceeded to pass the judgment of acquittal, ought to have dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and the same has not been done. Without the evidence, the trial Judge has proceeded to pass an order of acquittal. In spite of this, the matter is listed for final arguments. The learned counsel for the respondent did not turn up and on perusal of three dates of previous hearing also, learned counsel for the respondent did not turn up and hence, taken as 'no arguments' on the side of respondent's counsel. 9. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/complainant and also on perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nth of March 2009, the complainant had not appeared before the Magistrate. Hence, taken as 'no cross'. Subsequently, an application was filed and the same was considered by the Trial Court and passed an order on 29.05.2010. In spite of the Magistrate being lenient in considering the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, again the complainant did not choose to appear before the Magistrate. However, an opportunity was given till October 2010. No application was filed to recall the earlier order and the Magistrate proceeded to pass an order on merits and acquitted the accused. 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution oug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide the matter on merits. 14. Having taken note of the conduct, it is a fit case to impose cost on the complainant. 15. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.2010 passed in C.C.No.1913/2008 on the file of J.M.F.C., (V Court), Mangaluru, D.K, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on merits. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29.12.2020 without expecting the summons again. (v) The complainant is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/- before the Trial Court. On deposit, out of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- shall be payable to the accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
