IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 375 of 2000() ----------------------- CC.635/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ----------- K.P.MOIDEEN KOYA, S/O.SOOPY, KATTILAPEDIKAYIL HOUSE, THALAKULATHUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE ------------- 1. E.K.SRENDRAN, S/O.VASU, ETHARAKUNI HOUSE, ELATHUR AMSOM, DESOM, ELATHUR P.O, KOZHIKODE. (ELATHUR POLICE STATION). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.P.SRI.AMJAD ALI SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR R.1 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.Appeal. No.375 of 2000 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant who is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted by the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the case stood posted to 16.02.2000. On that day, there was a harthal. There was no facility of vehicle on that day. The appellant could not hence appear before the learned Magistrate on 16.02.2000. The learned Magistrate, realising the fact that there was no transport facility on that day on account of the harthal, posted the case to 17.02.2000, ie. the very next day. On that day, the counsel was not able to inform the appellant and hence when the case was called, the appellant happened to be absent. Crl.Appeal. No.375 of 2000 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate must have taken a reasonable view and should not have dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused invoking the powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 4. The respondent has entered appearance. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the request can be accepted and this appeal can be allowed. 5. In the result: i) This appeal is allowed; ii) The impugned order of acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C is set aside; iii) The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thamarassery is directed to dispose of the complaint afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. iv) The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate along with a copy of this judgment on 04.08.08. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.Appeal. No.375 of 2000 3