IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 496 of 2007() ----------------------- STC.9603/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III(MOBILE), KANNUR .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- K.RAJMOHAN, S/O.MR.P.V.KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT RAJINI MADIRAM,PAYYANNUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.SHAJAHAN P.M. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. M.A.RAHIMAN,ROAD CONTRACTOR,L.B ROAD, DEEN BUILDING,P.O ADAYAR,CHENNAI 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.Appeal No. 496 of 2007 (B) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal with leave is filed by the complainant in S.T.C.No.9603/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kannur. The complaint was filed alleging commission by the first respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, vide order assailed in this appeal, has acquitted the accused under Section 256(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reason of absence of the appellant. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below:- “Today, when the case came up for hearing, the complainant and the accused were absent. This case is posted for evidence as last chance. The complainant was directed to be present today for evidence. He has not appeared before the court inspite of repeated directions nor he filed affidavit. Reasons stated in the application filed by the complainant for his absence is that he is out of station. He has not mentioned the reason why he left the station. I am satisfied that the Crl.A.No.496 of 2007 (B) -: 2 :- complainant is not at all interested in prosecuting the case. Hence the accused is acquitted u/s 256(i) Cr.P.C.” 2. The above order shows that learned Magistrate was posting the case to 26/11/2003 as a last chance with specific direction to the appellant to be present for examination. Neither was the appellant present nor did he file any affidavit in evidence which, if filed, could have been acted upon by the Magistrate as the accused was also absent. The learned Magistrate has further observed that the application filed on behalf of the complainant for his absence is that, he is out of station but that he has not mentioned the reason why he has left the station despite posting of the case for evidence as a last chance. 3. It was in the above circumstance that the learned Magistrate acquitted the first respondent accused under Section 256(i) Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no reason for this Court to interfere with the said order. It has rightly been passed in the circumstance of wilful and callous absence of the appellant despite directions of the court. This appeal is hence devoid of merit. In the result, I dismiss this appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, Judge ms