IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 36 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ST.4024/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: P.SASIDHARAN,S/O. VELAYUDHAN POONCHOLA HOUSE, P.O. GOVERNMENT ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, CALICUT-18. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: 1. M.MURALIDHARAN,S/O. LATE M.KRISHNAN MUDAKKAYIL HOUSE, NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITAL, B.C.ROAD, BEYPORE, CALICUT-18. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRABABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 36 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT The complainant in S.T.No.4024/04 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Kozhikode is the appellant. He challenges, in this appeal, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 3.11.2006, acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Magistrate is extracted below for sake of easy reference: “On 18.10.06, when the case came up for hearing, the complainant was present and the accused was absent. Applied allowed. Then the case was adjourned for today, i.e. 3.11.06, specifically for adducing complainant's evidence. Both parties were also directed to be present today before court. But, the complainant did not appear before court today without any reasonable cause. Hence, the accused is acquitted under CRA 36/08 2 Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.” The above order speaks itself that on 18.10.2006 the case was adjourned directing the parties to appear on 3.11.2006 for adducing evidence of the appellant/complainant. The complainant did not appear without any reasonable cause. Obviously, the learned Magistrate could not make any progress in the case for the reason of absence of the complainant. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the learned Magistrate to have acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. There is no merit in this appeal. This appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed, refusing admission. 8th January, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv