IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 47 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN CC.649/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ---------------------- M/S.OLAM EXPORTS (INDIA) LTD., REGD. OFFICE M.C.579, VASUDHA APARTMENTS, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED IS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.SANAL KUMAR.R., S/O. S.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SENIOR EXECUTIVE, NOW RESIDING AT CHEMPAKASSERIL, KARIYARA POST, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------ 1. P.GOVARDHAN, 26-TNHB COMPLEX, 180-LUZY CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, MADRAS. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No.47 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The complainant, in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and registered as C.C.No.649/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, is the appellant. He has come up in appeal being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the first respondent/accused in the case under Section 256(1) Crl.P.C. 2. It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was present on several occasions before the court below, that the first respondent/ accused had not appeared even once and non bailable warrant was pending against him and in the circumstances, the acquittal of the accused by the court below is not justified. The counsel for the appellant has produced before me for perusal a handwritten copy of the order sheet maintained by the court below to show that the accused had not entered appearance. Assuming that the handwritten copy produced is a true and CRL.A.NO.47/2008 2 correct one, it shows that altogether from 13.1.1999, the date on which the case was taken cognizance of by the Magistrate, till 5.1.2002, the date on which the accused was acquitted, there were 15 postings and three years have also elapsed and the appellant could not effect service of summons on the first respondent, who is stated to have issued the cheque, which was dishonoured. If the appellant was not vigilant even in having the service completed within a period of three years, there is no meaning in setting aside the order of the court below and remitting the case of 1999 back to the court below after 9 years. In the above view, I confirm the order of acquittal passed by the court below and dismiss this Crl.Appeal. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, Judge csl