IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 CRL.A.No. 532 of 2005() ----------------------- ORDER IN CRL.LP.791/2004 Dated 09/12/2004 ST.3464/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI KURUSSAROORMANA, THAIKKATTUSSERY, EDAKKUNNY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, REPRESENTING M/S. SITARAM AYURVEDA PHARMACY LTD., THRISSUR, REGD.OFFICE AT XXV/397, ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1.P.R.KALADARAN, S/O. C.RAMAKRISHNAN, R.M.P., 116,C, S.N.R. THOTTAM, CHERAN NAGAR, SELVAPURAM, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. 2.THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.ALEX M.THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No.532 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 Judgment The complainant is the appellant. His complaint filed against the first respondent-accused was under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accused was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. It is stated that on 6.10.2004 the complainant was absent. The complaint was filed on 21.7.2003. The accused did not appear on summons. The learned counsel submits that the complainant had taken steps by paying the required process fee. The cheque in question was for Rs.6,597/- which was the value of the ayurvedic medicines purchased from the complainant. The physical presence of the complainant was not required since the case was not posted for evidence. As already stated, the complainant had paid the requisite process fee. The respondent-accused, though served, did not appear in this case. In view of what is stated above, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. In the result, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for CrlA.532/05 2 fresh disposal. The parties will appear before the learned Magistrate on 29th September, 2011. The appeal is allowed as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd CrlA.532/05 3