IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 CRL.A.No. 662 of 2003() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.2002 IN C.C.NO.278/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR APPELLANT(S): -------------- M/S.THANIKUDAM RAGAWATHI MILLS LTD., THANIKUDAM P.O., KURICHIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY K.K.CHANDRAN, OFFICE MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, S/O.BALAN MENON, KURUPPATH HOUSE, NELLIKADU DESOM, P.O. RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JAYACHANDRAN C. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.CHENDURAN TEXTILES, A FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.THAMBI ARUMUGAM, 581, DHARAPURAM ROAD, TIRUPUR 2. MR.A.THAMBI ARUMUGAM, S/O.K.C.ARUMUGAM CHETTIYAR, PARTNER OF M/S.CHENDURAN TEXTILES, TIRUPUR (DEAD). 3. MR.A.SUBRAMANIAM, S/O.K.C.ARUMUGAM CHETTIYAR, PARTNER OF M/S.CHENDURAN TEXTILES, 2/16, AMAR JOTHI GARDENS, TIRUPUR. 4. SMT.NEELAMANI, W/O.MR.A.SUBRAMIAM, 2/16, AMAR JOTHI GARDENS, IIND CROSS, KANGAYAM ROAD, TIRUPUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LOWSY THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J ------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.662 of 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in this appeal, which pertains to the year 2003, is against the order of acquittal vide judgment dated 22.0.2002 in CC No.278/2007, the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur, by which the learned Magistrate, in a prosecution for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act at the instance of the appellant who is the complainant therein, acquitted A4 u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C, though A3 and A1 are found guilty. Though the appeal is listed in the defect list on 12.10.2011, there was no representation and this Court suo- motu adjourned the matter to this date. Today also there is no representation for the appellant. The registry has noted that in spite of the fact that notice was sent on 24.6.2003, the same is not returned and though opportunity was given by the registry to the appellant to cure the defect on or before 28.7.2011, no step is taken and thus, it is posted on 12.10.2011. The above approach and conduct of the appellant is sufficient to hold that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. pm/