IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 CRL.A.No. 252 of 2008() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.844/2007 CC.932/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED FAIZAL, S/O. ABOOBACKER NAHA, NAHA MANZIL, KURUVANTHURUTHY, FEROKE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS: STATE AND ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.ASHRAF, S/O. KUPPANADATHIL BICHALI, KUPPANADATHIL HOUSE, KODAMPUZHA, FEROK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- Crl.Appeal.NO. 252 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The complainant in CC.No.932/95 on the files of the JFCM Court-V, Kozhikode is the appellant herein. The complaint was filed alleging that the accused committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Going by the statement contained in the petition for leave as also the appeal memorandum, the accused had never appeared before the court below in time after the complaint was instituted. It seems that proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC were taken against him. 2. On 30.10.2001 the complainant and the counsel delayed in reaching the court due to traffic jam at Palayam. Hence neither the complainant nor the counsel were present in the court. This resulted in acquittal of the accused under section 256 (i) of the Cr.P.C. 3. There is no appearance on behalf of the accused. A counsel had apparently represented the second respondent at an CRA. 252 /2008 2 earlier stage. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I am satisfied that there is no consistent default on the part of the complainant as such. In the result, the complainant is entitled to get another chance. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. The court below is directed to further proceed with C.C.No.932/1995 in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 13.10.2008. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ CRA. 252 /2008 3