IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No.1236 of 2001 (D) -------------------------------- CC.1225/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD. .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- P.M.SUNILKUMAR, S/O BALAN, PANIKKETTY HOUSE, THRITHALLUR, VATANAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 2 & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. N.V.BIJURAJ, S/O VELAYUDHAN, NEDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETHAI P.O., KUNDALIYOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.1236 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The complainant in C.C.1225/99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad is the appellant in this appeal. He assails in this appeal the order of acquittal passed by the court below acquitting the first respondent of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. 2. It is seen from the impugned order that the first respondent entered appearance before that court on 25/05/2000 and thereupon, the case was posted for evidence and the appellant continuously failed to appear before that court; and that finally, the case was adjourned as a last chance to 06/10/01 for recording the evidence of the appellant, but on that day also he was absent. The learned Magistrate observed from the circumstances that the complainant is not at all interested Crl. Appeal No.1236 of 2001 -2- in pursuing with the complaint. It was therefore, that the complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. 3. Though this appeal was filed assailing the order of acquittal in 2001, no attempt at all is made by the counsel for the appellant to see that this appeal is taken up for consideration on an early date. Consequently, this appeal has now become old by six and a half years. When the party and counsel is not interested in prosecuting the matter either in the court below or before this Court, I do not see any reason why this appeal has to be allowed and the matter remanded just to cause inconvenience to the trial court by sending back a very old case of 1999 again to his file. 4. Further, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the ground taken in this appeal explaining the absence of the appellant in the Crl. Appeal No.1236 of 2001 -3- court below on the date of passing of the impugned order on 06/10/01 is that non- appearance was not wilful but because the clerk of the counsel wrongly noted the date of posting; but that an application has been filed on 06/10/01 by the counsel in the court below seeking for an adjournment of the case on the ground that the appellant is ill and bedridden. This shows that the appellant has no hesitation to utter any falsehood to see somehow that his case filed under section 138 of the N.I. Act is brought back to file and is kept on file so that he can continue to harass the first respondent and make attempts for eliciting amounts from him. There is no merit at all in this appeal. 5. In the result, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-