IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 679 of 2003 ------------------------------------ CC.1112/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: SUNIL S/O. SRIDHARAN, MAROTTICKAL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: 1. K.T.JOSE, S/O. THOMAS, KAIPARAMBATT HOUSE, MOORKKANNOR, ANKAMALI, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 679 of 2003 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This appeal of the year 2003 is posted before Bench in the defect list, as the appellant has not taken any steps for notice being served on the first respondent. The appeal is one filed by the complainant in C.C.No.1112/99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thrissur, assailing the acquittal of the first respondent of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. When this appeal came up for admission on 17.6.2003, a learned Judge of this Court, while admitting the appeal, in his eagerness to dispose of the case at the earliest, passed the following order: “Notice given and the learned Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent/ State. Issue notice to the respondent/ CRA 679/03 2 accused. Simultaneously, give notice to the learned counsel (if any) for the respondent/accused, who was appearing in the lower court and file a memo to that effect within a period of 15 days.” The appellant has given scant regard to the above directions and has not paid the process for notice being issued to the first respondent nor has copy of the appeal memorandum been served on the counsel for the first respondent, who was appearing in the court below. The amount involved in the cheque, dishonour of which is complained of, is Rs.34,000/- and probably that is the reason why the appellant did not show much interest in prosecuting the appeal. In the circumstances, I see no reason why any further opportunity is to be afforded to the appellant to take steps in this appeal. In the result, I dismiss this criminal appeal. 8th April, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRA 679/03 3 K.P.Balachandran, J. --------------------- Crl.A.No.679 of 2001 --------------------- JUDGMENT 8th April, 2008