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. 1997 of 2007 -------------------------------------- CC.92/2007 of JFCM, IRINJALAKUDA ...... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: PRADEEP, S/O.KARAKKADA NARAYANAN, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, PORATHISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURESH MENON, S/O.VASUDEVAN, PONNAMBIL HOUSE, PALISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O. BY PUBLIC RPOSECUTOR 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.A.No. 1997 of 2007 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Despite service of notice, the second respondent has not entered appearance. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent State. 2. The appeal is one filed against the acquittal of the second respondent under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the appellant did not take steps for summons being issued to the second respondent in the court below. The order impugned shows that the case was posted to 24.4.2007 for return of summons from 8.3.2007. On 24.4.2007, the learned Magistrate noticed that no steps had been taken for summons being issued to the second respondent and that the appellant and his counsel were also absent and there was no representation either. The case was thereafter posted to 2.5.2007 and to 8.5.2007, on which days CRA 1997/07 2 also, the same thing repeated, as the counsel as also the party were absent and there was no one to represent the case on behalf of the appellant/ complainant. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate could not, but, dismiss the complaint and acquit the second respondent under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. The irresponsible manner in which the case was conducted in the court below by the appellant and his counsel, giving scant regard to the orders of court, warranted the order passed by the court below and there is no reason for interference by this Court under the circumstances. However, it is urged by the counsel for the appellant that the dishonoured cheque is for an amount of Rs.75,000/- and for that reason, an opportunity be granted to the appellant to have his case considered on merits, even imposing cost. In the result, I order that this appeal shall stand allowed and the case remanded back to the CRA 1997/07 3 court below in case an amount of Rs.3,000/- is deposited by way of cost to the credit of Kerala Legal Services Authority and receipt is produced positively within one week from today. In case of failure, this appeal shall stand dismissed. Report compliance on 14.2.2008. 5th February, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv