In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has ordered a fresh consideration of the case involving K. Vijayakumar and Kuzhithurai Canara Bank. The High Court’s previous judgement has been set aside, and the case will be reexamined. Read on for more details and stay informed about the latest legal proceedings in this matter.
Facts
- Trial court acquitted the appellant-accused due to lack of proof of charges
- High Court found the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds, not as a time-barred cheque
- High Court upheld the statutory requirements were proved by the respondent-complainant
- High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, convicted the appellant-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- A fine of Rs.60,000/- was imposed on the appellant-accused with a default option of six months of simple imprisonment
- Appellant-accused issued a post-dated cheque to Respondent-complainant for Rs.30,000/- drawn on Kuzhithurai Canara Bank.
- Cheque was returned due to insufficient funds on 19.01.2004.
- Respondent-complainant sent a statutory notice to the appellant-accused on 12.02.2004.
- Trial court examined PW-1 and PW-2, marking Exhibits P-1 to P-7.
- Appellant-accused borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the respondent-complainant on 12.08.2001.
- Respondent-complainant filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhithurai.
- No representation for the appellant-accused in the appeal before the High Court.
Also Read: High Court’s Decision on Large Gala Allotment Dispute: Supreme Court Verdict
Arguments
- The learned senior counsel representing the appellant-accused, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, argued before the court.
- He referenced a judgement in K.S. Panduranga vs State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721.
- The counsel contended that in the absence of the appellant’s counsel, the High Court erred in deciding the appeal on merits.
- A plea was made to remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
- The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee has nominated Col. Pahlad Singh Sharma, Advocate to appear and argue on behalf of the respondent.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Analysis
- Col. Pahlad Singh Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant.
- The impugned judgment and other materials on record were perused.
- The analysis considered the arguments presented by Col. Pahlad Singh Sharma and examined the contentions raised in the case.
- The judgment provided a detailed review of the facts, evidence, and legal points involved.
- Implications of the evidence and legal provisions were discussed to arrive at a conclusion.
- The High Court should not have decided the criminal appeal on merits when the accused was not represented.
- In such cases, the High Court could have appointed an amicus curiae to defend the accused.
- If the accused has not appeared in the High Court, a second notice should have been issued or an advocate appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee.
- The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without giving the appellant-accused an opportunity to be heard or appointing an amicus curiae.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Decision
- The appellant is directed to appear before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 26.08.2019.
- The High Court will notify the respondent-complainant K. Vijayakumar about the date of the hearing.
- Both parties will be given sufficient opportunity to present their case.
- The High Court will re-examine the matter in accordance with the law.
- The case is sent back to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court for a fresh consideration.
- The impugned orders of the High Court dated 06.07.2018 and 23.06.2018 are set aside.
- The appeals are allowed and Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 608 of 2007 is to be considered afresh.
Case Title: CHRISTOPHER RAJ Vs. K VIJAYAKUMAR
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000986-000987 / 2019
