IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 1921 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.998/2007 Dated 09/10/2007 ST.2444/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ---------------------- P.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.M.K.NAIR, SREE VIHAR, DR.P.A.KUTTY ROAD, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.SHAJAJAN, S/O.KUNMHAHAMMAD, E.K.K.HOUSE, NEELIKKADEU, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI SRI.H.BADARUDDIN FOR R2 SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.A.No.1921 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is against the dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court invoking the powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 2. The averments in the appeal reveal that two cases of the same complainant were posted before two different courts on the same day. He had appeared before one court and made representation in the other court to get the matter passed over. It was passed over once. By the time it was called again, the complainant could not reach the court. Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed and the accused was acquitted. The learned counsel for the complainant prays that a realistic and reasonable view may be taken and the impugned order of acquittal may be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to specifically controvert the facts alleged. He submits that he has no specific instructions on this aspect. I do not find any reason not to accept the averments which have been made clearly in the Crl.A.No.1921/07 2 memorandum of appeal. Considering all the relevant aspects, I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the appeal can be allowed. 3. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. 4. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of S.T.No.2444/2002 afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Both parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 11/8/2008 to continue with the case. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the complainant for production before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.A.No.1921/07 3 Crl.A.No.1921/07 4 R.BASANT, J C.R.M.C.No. ORDER DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006