IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 581 of 2000 ------------------------------------ CC.841/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: PANIKA VEETIIL ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O KALLIPARAMBIL KUNHIMOHAMMED, PAZHUVIL DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: T.Y.MOINUDDIN, COCONUT SHOP, YOUSUF MANZIL, NISHAN PADA, CROSS LANE, DONGRI-9, MUMBAI - 400 009. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 581 of 2000 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the appellant. The court below was dismissing the complaint under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C., vide order impugned, for the reason that though steps were repeated several times, service could not be effected, as the address given in the complaint was incomplete and despite affording four postings, the direction given to the appellant/complainant to appear before court to furnish the correct address of the accused was not complied with he did not turn up. It was, in the above circumstance, that the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The complaint is one filed as early as in 1998 and now ten years have elapsed. I am not of the view that a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the court below requires to be taken back to file after ten years, so as to enable the appellant to take out CRA 581/00 2 steps to the respondent/accused. Before this Court also service had not been effected on the respondent. In the result, I dismiss this appeal. 9th January, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRA 581/00 3 K.P.Balachandran, J. --------------------- Crl.A.No.581 of 2000 --------------------- JUDGMENT 9th January, 2008