Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, to defer pronouncement of judgment in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court noted that the Magistrate had dismissed the accused’s plea to reopen evidence for marking WhatsApp chat screenshots but did not provide a copy of the dismissal order, while fixing the matter for judgment the very next day. Holding that such a course could affect fairness of the proceedings, the High Court ordered supply of the certified copy within three days and adjourned pronouncement of judgment for two weeks

The proceedings arose from a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to dishonour of cheques. The complainant was examined as PW1, and documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P1 to P61 was produced. During the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, he stated that the cheques were originally handed over to one Shivasubramaniam, who was later examined as DW1. During his testimony, WhatsApp chat printouts between him and the accused were shown, and he admitted to the phone number. However, the chat printouts were not formally marked as exhibits.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Death Penalty in 2014 Child Rape-Murder Case Set Aside | Accused Acquitted as Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The accused thereafter filed an application (Ext.P2) to reopen the evidence to mark these printouts. The Magistrate proceeded with hearings without deciding on Ext.P2 and posted the case for judgment. The accused approached the High Court in O.P.(Crl.) No.539 of 2025, which directed the Magistrate to consider Ext.P2. Subsequently, the Magistrate dismissed Ext.P2 on 08.09.2025 and posted the case for judgment on 09.09.2025. The accused applied for a certified copy of the dismissal order (Ext.P4) on the same day but had not been provided one. Aggrieved that judgment was being pronounced without receiving the copy of the order, the accused filed the present petition before the High Court

The High Court carefully examined the grievance of the petitioner. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan recorded in the judgment: “It is true that the judiciary is facing docket explosions, and every judicial officer should strive to dispose of cases without adjourning cases at the instance of parties for frivolous reasons. But, while trying to dispose of the cases, the court should bear in mind that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It emphasises the importance of transparency and perception in the administration of justice.”

The Court further recorded: “Even if a case is dismissed or allowed, parties should leave the court premises with a feeling that they obtained a fair chance to contest their case. Then only the system will prevail. That is the success of the justice delivery system.”

Referring to the petitioner’s grievance, the Court observed: “It is clear that the petitioner is very much interested in the outcome of the Ext. P2 petition, and that is why he approached this court earlier, which resulted in the Ext P3 judgment. If Ext. P2 is dismissed, the court ought to have issued a copy of the order immediately. I am dissatisfied with the way in which the learned Magistrate shows haste in disposing of this case.”

The Court stated: “As I mentioned earlier, justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Whether this Court will interfere with the order passed in Ext.P2 is a different matter. When the petitioner filed an application and there was a delay in passing orders on it, the petitioner approached this Court, and this Court directed that the said application be disposed of immediately. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken such haste to dispose of the main case itself by dismissing the petition yesterday and posting the case for judgment today.”

The Bench added: “This practice is not proper. Heaven will not fall down if the pronouncement of the final verdict is made after serving a copy of the order passed in Ext. P2.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Pre-Operative Fit-Out Workers Not Covered Under Section 2(9) of ESI Act | Refund of Contributions Directed

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed: “The certified copy of the order passed in Ext.P2 shall be served to the petitioner within three days from today, if a proper application for the same is filed.”

“The pronouncement of the judgment in ST No.789 of 2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O) Ernakulam is deferred for a period of two weeks from today.”

It ordered the Registry to “inform the office of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O) Ernakulam over the phone and communicate to the learned magistrate that the judgment shall not be pronounced today in ST No.789 of 2023.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. Franklin Arackal, Smt. Shyla Shaffeq, Sri. I.J. Augustine, Sri. M.B. Soori

Case Title: Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:66649

Case Number: O.P. (Crl.) No.609 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan