IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1113 of 2003() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.148/2003 Dated 03/07/2003 ST.839/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEERUMEDU .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ELAPPARA. BY ADVS. MR.H.B.SHENOY, MR.B.ASHOK SHENOY. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. RAJAN, ARUKUZHIYIL, ELAPPARA P.O., ELAPPARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1113 OF 2003 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant is a statutory authority, which had moved a complaint against the 1st respondent for realisation of some amount, due to the authority, in respect of an auction conducted over a stall in a public market. It appears from the nature of the submissions made and statements in the memorandum of revision, the 1st respondent, who bid in auction in respect of a stall in the market, defaulted in making full amount, and consequently, the Panchayat suffered loss in the fresh auction. To realise the loss, as provided by statutory rules, the complaint was filed against the 1st respondent. On the hearing date of the case, the complainant was absent, and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the complainant Panchayat has preferred this appeal. CRL.A.1113/03 2 2. Notice was served on the 1st respondent, the accused, but, he has not entered appearance. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. It is submitted that there was some latches on the part of the counsel of the Panchayat in informing the Panchayat authorities about the posting of the case, and as such, effective steps could not be taken, which eventually resulted in the non-appearance of the officials of the Panchayat on the posting date, and consequent dismissal of the complaint. It is also submitted that there was no deliberate latches or wilful default on the part of the Panchayat in prosecuting the complaint. Having regard to the fact that a statutory authority can prosecute only through human agency, and inevitably for reasons beyond the control of the authority, on account of some negligence on the part of its officials, its interests are likely to be affected. No doubt, the Panchayat ought have taken adequate care that the prosecution of the complaint is proceeded with due diligence, and there is no room for any lapse. Secretary of the CRL.A.1113/03 3 Panchayat, during the pendency of the case had been transferred to another station, and the posting of the case was on a day immediately after the new incumbent took charge, it is submitted by the learned counsel. Having regard to the submissions made, which appears to be genuine, I find that to meet the ends of justice, the dismissal of the complaint has to be set aside and the case remitted for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Complainant is directed to appear before the court below on 20th April, 2009. The appeal is allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1113 OF 2003 (C) --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009