IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No.65 of 2007(C) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.L.P.525/2006 Dated 10/10/2006 ST.436/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-IV, KOCHI. .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ M/S.COCHIN BUSINESS CENTRE, (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM), E.R.G.ROAD, KOMBARA, KOCHI-14, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 44, S/O.C.B.IBRAHIMKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. M/S.SANTHA AGENCIES, DOOR NO.20/295/1, FIRST FLOOR, O.K.M.SHANIVAS, O.S.A.LANE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683 108, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MRS.SANTHA JOMY. 2. MRS.SANTHA JOMY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SANTHA AGENCIES, DOOR NO.20/295/1, FIRST FLOOR, O.K.M.SHANIVAS, O.S.A.LANE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683 108. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.65 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This is appeal filed by the complainant in S.T.436/04 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kochi challenging the acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2 of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act under Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The judgment passed by the learned Magistrate shows that on 05/11/05, the case stood posted for evidence of the appellant and it has been further adjourned to 20/01/06, 21/02/06 and thereafter, to 17/04/06 for evidence of the appellant/complainant. The learned Magistrate has stated in the judgment that when the case was called, the appellant/ complainant was absent and there was no representation even, on the behalf of the appellant/complainant whereas the second respondent who was representing the first Crl. Appeal No.65 of 2007 -2- respondent/accused was present as the case stood posted for evidence. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate the personal attendance of the Managing Partner on behalf of the complainant/firm was necessary as otherwise the Magistrate could not make any progress in the case. It was therefore, that refusing to adjourn the trial to any other day, the learned Magistrate disposed of the case acquitting respondents 1 and 2 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. I see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal so passed by the learned Magistrate. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal assailing the acquittal of respondents 1 and 2 and this appeal deserves only to be dismissed. 3. In the result, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-