IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1756 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.818/2007 CC.374/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- BABY, W/O.VARGHESE, ARACKAPARAMBIL NADUVATTOM, MANJAPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.NARAYANA PILLAI SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. VENGITACHALA AYER, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAYATTOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J ------------------------------ Crl. A. No.1756 of 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 ORDER The above appeal is preferred challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, in a prosecution for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act in CC No.374/1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva. The appellant is the complainant in the above case. 2. Though, there was delay in filing the special leave petition u/s.378(4) of Cr.P.C, this court condoned the delay without issuing notice to the respondent. 3. Subsequently, when the above appeal came up for consideration, this Court by order dated 7.11.2007 issued notice to the respondents, before admission on the ground that the delay that occurred in filing special leave petition was allowed without issuing notice to the respondents. 4. Subsequently, the registry has noticed that process has not filed and noting the above defect, the case was listed in the defect list on 25.7.2011 on which date, there was no representation. Thus, this Court by order dated 25.7.2011 adjourned the case suo-motu, granting 10 days time to cure the Crl. A. No.1756 of 2007 2 defect. Today, the registry again reported that process has not filed and today also there is no representation for the appellant. The above approach and conduct of the party is sufficient to hold that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. pm/