IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No.2021 of 2007(C) ------------------------------- ORDER IN CRL.L.P.867/2007 Dated 27/09/2007 CC.899/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- RAMESH KURUP, S/O.T.K.KURUP, NOOK NIVAS,PARINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.S.SASIKUMAR, SURESH VIHAR, AMBADIKULAM ROAD, OLARIKKARA, P.O.PULLAZHI-THRISSUR-23. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.2021 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed with leave by the complainant in C.C.899/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur assailing the acquittal of the second respondent under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is seen from the order of acquittal impugned before me that on 16/06/07 specifically the complainant was directed to be present before court to tender evidence posting the case as a last chance to 10/07/07 and despite such a direction given, the appellant was absent on 10/07/07 whereas the accused was present. A petition was filed by the counsel for the appellant stating that the appellant is laid up which however, was not supported by any medical certificate. In the circumstances in Crl. Appeal No.2021 of 2007 -2- which such an application was filed, the learned Magistrate had no reason to accept the application as genuine and it was therefore, that he rejected the application. If at all a direction had to be given to the complainant to be present on the next posting date adjourning the case as a last chance to 10/07/07, it must be a case where the complainant was not appearing in court to tender evidence for a few posting. If at all the appellant was not interested in proceeding with the case and wanted to keep the complaint on file so as to negotiate with the respondent that cannot be allowed especially when there was posting of the case as a last chance to adduce evidence. Due to the absence of the appellant/complainant, the learned Magistrate was not able to make any progress in the case and it was in the said circumstances that the appellant was acquitted under Section 256(1) Crl. Appeal No.2021 of 2007 -3- Cr.P.C. There is nothing improper in the learned Magistrate having acquitted the second respondent in the above circumstances. This appeal is devoid of merit and deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-