IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1594 of 2003() ----------------------------------- CC.217/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.298/2003 Dated 25/08/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- V.C.SAROJAN, S/O.CHOYI, 38 YEARS, VADAKKE CHETHIN VEEDU, TRINGAL AMSOM DESOM. BY ADVS.MR.GHOSH YOHANNAN MR.ANOOP U.R. SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------ 1. P.M.KRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, 35 YEARS, CHORIYAN CHALIL, THAREMMAL VEEDU, MELADI, AMSOM DESOM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1594 OF 2003 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C in a 138 N.I. Act case. The accused after entering appearance, absconded and proceedings were taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Some directions were given to the complainant to take steps. 2. I think there was a representation regarding the settlement of the matter as well. What ever it may be, as the complainant was not present, the court acquitted the accused. It is true that notice is not served in this case to the accused. But, it has to be remembered that the accused was acquitted at a stage when Sections 82 and 83 steps were taken against him for non appearance before the court. So, in such a situation, it is not obligatory on the part of this Court to issue notice. Therefore, I dispense with notice to the first respondent. There is no gross negligence or grave misconduct. 2 CRL.A.NO.1594/03 Therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the case back to file and dispose it of in accordance with law. The complainant is directed to be present before the court on 27.8.2009 and then take steps for procuring the presence of the accused. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 CRL.A.NO.1594/03 4 CRL.A.NO.1594/03