IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRL.A.No. 394 of 2008() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.74/2008 Dated 30/01/2008 ST.526/2006 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -X, Thiruvananthapuram .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ---------------------- "KELPALM" (KERALA STATE PALMIRAH PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT AND WORKERS WELFARE CORPORATION LTD), REG.OFFICE, T.C.9/1448, DEVAKI GOPAL SMRITHY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (REPRESENTED BY DR.A.C.RAJAN, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR). BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------ 1. S.SUDHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KALPANA AGENCY, A 580, VIPIN HOUSE, KOTTAIKKAKOM, ARYANADU P.O., NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.A.No.394 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June 2008 J U D G M E N T The appellant is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant and his counsel were absent. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that the complainant had taken all necessary steps; but on account of unavoidable circumstances - allegedly on account of the failure on the part of the counsel to inform the appellant in time, the appellant could not be present before the court on the date of posting and the counsel did not appear. The appellant is a Corporation represented by an official. 2. The respondent has been served. There is no representation for the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of this case I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the complainant can be granted a further opportunity to prosecute his complaint. Crl.M.C.No.394/08 2 3. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed. b) Impugned order passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C is set aside. c) The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to further prosecute this complaint and the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. 4. Both parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 21/7/2008 to continue with this proceedings. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.394/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.394/08 4 R.BASANT, J C.R.M.C.No. ORDER DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006