IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST, 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1933 CRL.A.No. 1056 of 2005 ------------------------------ (LEAVE GRANTED AS PER ORDER IN CRLP.378/2005 Dated 21/06/2005 CC.422/2002 of COURT OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY) .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------- SAJI GEORGE, S/O.P.M.GEORGE, PARAYIL HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O., PINARUMUNDA-683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS(S): ACCUSED ------------------------- 1. PERMANENT ADDRESS: JOHN MATHEW, ADOORMURIYIL, KUZHIMURIYIL ESTATE, PATTAZHIMUKKU, CHAYALODE, ADOOR. TEMPORARY ADDRESS: JOHN MATHEW, KADAVATHOOR HOUSE, MILMA ROAD, KOONAMTHAI, COCHIN-24. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 1056 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The above appeal is filed at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'), challenging the order dated 6.4.2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry in C.C.No.422 of 2002 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. as the complainant was absent and the address of the accused was not furnished and no step is taken to issue process to the accused. 2. Initially, by order dated 21.6.2005 in Crl.L.P.No.378 of 2005, this Court granted leave for filing the appeal. Thus, when the above appeal came up for consideration on 30.6.2005, this Court adjourned the matter to 1.7.2005. On that day also, there was no representation and therefore, by order dated 1.7.2005, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellant and accordingly, CRL.A.NO.1056 of 2005 :-2-: the Registry has served notice on the appellant. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 15.7.2005, dispensed with the personal appearance of the appellant and admitted the appeal and issued notice. Subsequently, the Registry has noted that process memo has not been received in the section and hence, service is not complete and accordingly, listed the matter in the defect list on 1.8.2011. But, on that day, there was no representation and therefore, this Court suo motu adjourned the matter to a date after ten days as last chance. Today also there is no representation. In the light of the above facts and in view of the reasons stated in the order sought to be impugned, it is crystal clear that the appellant is negligent in prosecuting the matter and he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ CRL.A.NO.1056 of 2005 :-3-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. CRL.A.No. OF 20 CRL.A.NO.1056 of 2005 :-4-: JUDGMENT Dated:2. ..2011