IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 495 of 2007() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRLP.139/2007 Dated 01/03/2007 STC.9578/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III(MOBILE), KANNUR .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT. ----------------------- K.RAJAMOHAN, S/O.P.V.KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT RAJINI MADIRAM, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED. --------------------- 1. M.A.RAHIMAN, ROAD CONTRACTOR, L.B.ROAD, DEEN BUILDING, P.O.ADAYAR, CHENNAI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.Appeal No. 495 of 2007 (B) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal with leave is filed by the complainant in S.T.C.No.9578/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kannur. The complaint was one alleging commission by the first respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was acquitted by the learned Magistrate for the reason that the complainant was not ready to prosecute the case. The order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the accused was present and the complainant was absent despite the specific direction given to him to be present before the court for examination. An application was filed for exemption and the learned Magistrate has observed that there is no valid reason shown for the inability of the appellant/complainant to be present on that day. The specific direction to the appellant/complainant to Crl.A.No.495 of 2007 (B) -: 2 :- appear was obviously for proceeding with the trial of the case. For reason of the absence of the appellant, the learned Magistrate could not make any progress in the case and it was in that circumstance that the accused was acquitted under Section 256(i) Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not see any reason why this Court is to interfere in the acquittal ordered by the court below under the above circumstance. This appeal is, hence, devoid of merit. In the result, I dismiss this criminal appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, Judge ms