IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1918 of 2003(C) ------------------------------------- CC.669/2000 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------- A.P.JUDE PAUL, S/O. A.M.PAUL, AMBATTU HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.M.D.SASIKUMAR MR.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PROPRIETOR, SUGAMA PRINTERS, SUGAMA, SANTHI NAGAR, THEVARA. 2. GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, PROPRIETOR, SUGAMA PRINTERS, SUGAMA, SANTHI NAGAR, THEVARA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.D.PEETHAMBARAN. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 1918 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal passed in C.C.669/00 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is noted in the list that there is defect but I do not find any defect at all for the reason that there was a direction to give notice to the respondent and simultaneously to give notice to the learned counsel for the respondent who was appearing before the lower court. Notice was given to advocate Sri.D. Peethambaran. There is no defect in the petition. This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal passed u/s 256(1) Cr.P.C. in a S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act case. As both the parties did not appear on 14.8.2003 the accused was acquitted u/s 256(1) Cr.P.C. I think the evidence was over in the case and there was no necessity to acquit the accused u/s 256(1) Cr.P.C. at that Crl. Appeal NO. 1918 OF 2003 -:2:- stage. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity and therefore the Crl.Appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate u/s 256(1) of Cr.P.C. is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to restore the case back to file and proceed in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 27.8.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-