IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 2455 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.1258/2007 Dated 12/12/2007 CC.193/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- RADHA, D/O. VIJAYAN NAIR PUTHUVAKKATTU HOUSE KAKKULISSERY, IRINJALAKKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. GEETHA W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, BHAGAVATHI HOUSE,BALASMRITHI, THEKKE NADA, KODUNGALLOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CR.A.No.2455 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The complainant in C.C.No.193/06 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudi, is the appellant herein. 2. The calender case arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant against the 1st respondent alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short 'the Act'}. The allegation against the accused is that she had issued a cheque. When it was presented, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. In spite of the statutory notice, the amount was not paid. The sworn statement of the complainant was taken and summons was issued to the accused. According to the complainant, she was present on 21.4.2006, 28.6.2006, 30.3.2007, 8.6.2007 and 9.7.2007. She was absent on 27.9.2007 on which date, finding that the complainant is absent, the court below proceeded to acquit the accused CR.A.No.2455 of 2008 :: 2 :: under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence this appeal. 3. A copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.193/06 is made available for my perusal. The version given by the complainant seems to be correct. 4. In the above circumstance and having heard counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the appellant must be given another opportunity to prosecute the case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. Learned Magistrate shall further proceed with C.C.No.193/06. The parties are directed to appear on 24.11.2008. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge