IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 887 of 2005() ----------------------- CC.2176/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------ JOSE STEPHEN, KAVOLAND, SHAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. NAZEEMA HAMEED, W/O.HAMEED, PUTHEN PURAYIL, KAYAMKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ============== Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2005 ==================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The complainant in C.C.No.2176/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam is the appellant herein. The calendar case arises out of a complaint, alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, the case was posted to 5.2.2005 and next posting date was on 16.2.2005, which was wrongly noted by the advocate clerk as 16.3.2005. Hence the complainant and his counsel could not appear before the court on 16.2.2005 and this lead to the acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard the counsel. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the complainant is entitled to another chance to prosecute the complaint. Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2005 2 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. The court below shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the court below on 17.11.2008. V.GIRI, JUDGE bkn/-