IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 2424 of 2007 ------------------------------------- CC.873/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: MATHEW K.CHERIAN, KOSAMATTOM HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.E.JOSEPH, PUVATHURTHOPPIL, MUNDANKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: 1. EBRAHIMKUTTY, SHANAVAS MANZIL, AADIKKATTUKULANGARA P.O. NOORANAD, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 2424 of 2007 --------------------------- JUDGMENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No. 873/05 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Chengannur. He filed the complaint alleging commission by the first respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 18.4.2007, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the reason that the complainant was absent and there was no representation even on his behalf. It is the said judgment that is assailed before me in this appeal. 2. The judgment assailed shows that the accused was present and the complainant was absent and there was no representation even on his behalf on 18.4.2007. It was further observed in the judgment that the case was being posted for evidence of the complainant from 12.5.2006 onwards and from that date onwards, the complainant was absent. It was, CRA 2424/07 2 finally, on 18.4.2007, after almost an year of the case began to be posted for evidence of the complainant, that the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the reason that the complainant is absent and there is no representation even on his behalf. Inasmuch as the case was being posted for evidence of the complainant, without his presence, no progress could be made in the case and it was, in the said circumstance, that the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. There is absolutely no reason why any further opportunity is to be given to the appellant/complainant in the nature in which the matter was dealt with by him in the court below. There is no merit in this appeal. In the result, I dismiss this appeal confirming the order of the learned Magistrate, acquitting the first respondent/accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15th January, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv