IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 619 of 2005() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.833/2005 Dated 06/01/2005 CC.217/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------- K.D.BABY, ,AGED 40, S/O.DEVASSY KANJIRATHINKAL VEEDU, NEAR MARTHOMA CHURCH, NASSRATH ROAD, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN SMT.AJI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. E.V.SURESH, EDASSERY HOUSE, POTTA P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.A.No.619 of 2005 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.No.217/2002 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva and by judgment dated 8.7.2004 in the above case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C, where the allegation against the accused is that he had committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of the NI Act. It is the above order is challenged in this appeal. 2. When the leave petition was filed u/s.378(4) of Cr.P.C. there was a delay of 156 days which was condoned of this court by order dated 16.12.2004 and thus, thereafter the leave petition came up for consideration on 6.1.2005 and the same was allowed. Consequently, the above appeal came up for admission on 30.5.2005 and this Court admitted the same and ordered notice on that day. The registry has noted that though the notice was ordered on 30.5.2005 no process memo is received in the Section till 22.7.2011 and accordingly, the case was listed in the defect list on 3.8.11. But on that day, there Crl.A.No.619 of 2005 2 was no representation and therefore, this court suo-motu adjourned the case and posted the same after 10 days as last chance and thus the matter stand posted today. Today, also there is no representation. The above conduct of the appellant shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal in which the challenge is against an order of acquittal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/