IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 94 of 2008 ----------------------------------- ST.913/2006 of JFCM-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT/(COMPLAINANT): K. SANTHOSH KUMAR, TC.28/1292, SARAD VILLA, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/(ACCUSED AND STATE): 1. K. RAJENDRAN, KALPANA MOTORS, HOUSING BOARD JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.J.AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 94 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This is appeal with leave against the acquittal of the first respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act consequent on absence of the complainant and his counsel. It is observed by the learned Magistrate that the case was being posted for evidence as last chance, ordering no further time and the accused was present, but the complainant was absent. It is further observed in the order that the complainant was continuously absent, including the day on which the case was disposed of. There was no petition even filed on behalf of the complainant for exemption and the counsel also was absent. Obviously, the learned Magistrate could not proceed with trial of the case and no evidence could be adduced to make any progress in the case due to absence of the appellant/complainant. It was, in the said circumstance, that the learned CRA 94/08 2 Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal. In the result, I dismiss this appeal. 21st January, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv