IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.L.P..No. 1005 of 2008() --------------------------- CC.142/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- SASIKUMAR, KALPANA, KUMUKUMCHERY MURI, KARAYARA, PIDAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. HANEEFA, S/O.UMMER RAWTHER, EETTIVILA VEEDU, KARAYARA, PUNALUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.L.P. NO. 1005 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T This petition is preferred with a permission to file appeal against the order of acquittal in C.C.142/07. The learned counsel made available before me the copy of the proceedings paper. There were 22 postings between 21.12.2006 to 17.4.2008. Unfortunately not even on a solitary occasion the complainant presented herself before the Court. Most probably the Court was also fed up and ultimately on 18.3.2008 it gave a mandate that the complainant shall be present and posted it to 27.3.2008. Again on 27.3.2008 the complainant was absent. Further on 5.4.2008 also she was absent again on 15.4.2008 also she was absent and ultimately she was directed to appear on 17.4.2008 on that date also the accused was present, the complainant was absent and therefore the Court acquitted the accused u/s 256(i) Cr.P.C. There cannot be a case where the complainant can be more Crl.A. 1005 OF 2008 -2- negligent. I am conscious of the principle that matters should be heard and disposed of on merits. There should not be undisplaced sympathy when there is gross negligence and grave mis-conduct. This is a classical case of gross negligence and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate. Hence this Crl.L.P is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-