IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 1870 of 2006() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRLP.224/2004 Dated 23/03/2004 CC.634/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT. ----------------------- MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, MADAYI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENTS: ACUSED. -------------------- 1. E.V.RAMESHAN, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, PROPRIETOR HOTEL ATHIRA, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, THAVAM P.O. CHERUKUNNU. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNETED BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.A.1870/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The complainant in C.C.No.634/2002 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, is the appellant herein. The complaint was filed alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Apparently the Court below had required the presence of the complainant and had repeatedly directed him to be present and when on 5.1.2004 there was again a representation on behalf of the complainant for excusing his absence, the Court below concluded that the complainant was only protracting and prolonging the matter as far as possible. The Court did not find any mitigating circumstances to grant further adjournments. Hence the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. 3. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused. Crl.A.1870/2006 2 4. I do not find any explanation why the complainant was absent on the date of disposal and also for what the Court below has termed as persistent default on the part of the complainant in being present in Court. Learned Magistrate obviously was justified in concluding that there was no reasonable or tenable explanation for the continued absence of the complainant. In the circumstances, acquittal under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C was justified. 5. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs