IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1660 of 2011() ------------------------ ST.11/1994 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------- KALIDASAN, S/O.RAMANATHAN MANNADIAR, RESIDING AT VAZHAKODE, PERUVEMBA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: NOT PARTY-ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. HAREES, S/O.MAHAMMUDE, RESIDING AT KALPPA HOTEL, N.K.HOUSE, PERINGADI, NEW MAHI, KANNUR. R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LOWSY THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 1660 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 21st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 17.4.1995 in S.T.No.11 of 1994 of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Palakkad, which is an order acquitting the accused under section 256(1) Cr.P.C. In the complaint, preferred by the appellant, the offence alleged is under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. 2. On a perusal of the papers available on record, it appears that there were laches on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter effectively and taking appropriate steps within the time permitted by law. There was delay in filing the Crl.L.P and also in representing the file. This court by order dated 23.8.2007, leave was granted, on condition of depositing Rs.1000/- in the High Court Legal Service Committee, within 15 days from the date of that order. But the said condition was not complied with in time. It appears that subsequently, with the permission of this court as per the order in Crl.M.A.No.7075 of 2011, the said cost was paid belatedly. 3. Thus, when the above appeal came up for admission 26.9.2011, the same was admitted imposing a condition of depositing a sum of CRL.A. NO.1660/11 2 Rs.3000/- on taking note of the enormous delay. Today when the matter is taken for consideration, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not comply with the condition stipulated by this court by order dated 26.9.2011. The above conduct of the appellant would show that the appellant is negligent and he is not interested in prosecuting the matter and the negligence and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.A. NO.1660/11 3