M.K. SALEEM Vs. STATE MUKTHAR AHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the parties in the above three cases are one and the same and the order challenged in these appeals is also one and the same and the facts and circumstances involved in the case are identical, these appeals are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In all the appeals, the challenge is against the common order issued under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. acquitting the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act instituted at the instance of the appellant/complainant. Crl.A.No. 963 of 2009 is filed against S.T.C.No. 2479 of 2007 and Crl.A.No. 964 of 2009 is filed against C.C.No. 460 of 2008 in which cases both the cheques in question cover an amount ofRs.2,50,000/whereas Crl.A.No. 965 of 2009 is filed against S.T.C.No. 3516 of 2007 in which the cheque amount isRs.3 lakhs. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the filing of the complaints before the trial court, the appellant/complainant has got a job in abroad and therefore, he could not appear before the court below and adduce evidence, when the case was posted for trial in the court below. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the counsel, who appeared before the trial court, failed to bring those facts to the notice of the trial court and thus, the cases were got adjourned regularly. Thus, after giving seven postings of the cases, the impugned order was passed on the eighth day of posting of the cases, i.e., on 13.2.2009. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the total amount covered by three cheques involved in the above three cases will come to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs and therefore, an opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit and to have a decision thereon. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and I have perused the order impugned in these appeals. In the light of the facts stated in the impugned order, it can be seen that three cheques involved in three cases cover altogether an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs and though the court has taken cognizance in each case, there is no decision on merit. It is also discernible from the order that though during the previous posting dates, the complainant was represented by the counsel, on the date of the impugned order, there was no representation for the complainant. Therefore, I find no fault with the findings of the court below, especially when the case was being adjourned regularly for the evidence of the complainant. Still then, the fact remained is that though cognizance was taken based upon the three complaints filed by the appellant, connected with the dishonour of three cheques for a total sum of Rs.8 lakhs, there is no decision on merit. Therefore, it is only just and proper to grant an opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit and to have a decision thereon, but such an opportunity can be given to the complainant only on terms, especially when the accused is hailing from Bangalore.