IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 159 of 2008 ------------------------------------ CC.573/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: RASHEED, S/O. UNNIMOYI, OMASSERY VEEDU, THIRUVAMBADY AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1. K.O.MUHAMMED, S/O. BEERANKUTTY, KURIMPILIKKADU, KODIYATHUR AMSOM, CHERUVADI DESOM. 2. NAZER, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, DO. DO. 3. UNNIMOYI, S/O. CHEKKU, DO. DO. 4. JAFFER, S/O. KUNHAPPU, DO. DO. 5. ALI, S/O. KUNHAPPU, DO. DO. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 159 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.573/00 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thamarassery. Respondents 1 to 5, who were the accused in the case, were acquitted for want of evidence as early as on 17.7.2002 by the learned Magistrate and for lack of interest shown by the appellant, leave was granted only on 8.10.2007, that too condoning the delay without notice being served on the respondents. 2. On going through the judgment of the court below, it is seen that the appellant showed least interest in adducing evidence and that too in a case, where the complaint was one filed complaining of commission by respondents 1 to 5 only of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 thereof. I see no reason why this appeal is to be allowed and the case is to be remanded after such a length of time, especially CRA 159/08 2 when due interest, expected of the appellant/ complainant, was not shown by him in the matter of adducing evidence in the court below. It was in the absence of any evidence incriminating against respondents 1 to 5 that the court below acquitted the accused. There is no reason to interfere with the said order of acquittal. This appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merit and deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this appeal. 29th January, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv