IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1225 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.739/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- K.R.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O RAMAN, KARIYANGATTIL VEEDU, KANNIYAMPURAM AMSOM, PANAMANNA DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. BHARGAVI, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. KARUPPAN, THIRUTHINMEL VEEDU, PANAMANNA SOUTH, KANNIYAMPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: amI/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.1225 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the complainant in a prosecution for an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as he is aggrieved by the order of the trial court u/s.256(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the accused entered appearance and recorded his pleading only on 5.1.2010 and on the next posting date, the impugned order is passed by the trial court. The learned counsel also made available to me a certified copy of the proceedings of the trial court, which is sufficient to substantiate the submission made by the learned counsel. 3. From the order impugned, it is not discernible whether the complainant was persistently absent and negligent in adducing evidence. As the impugned order was passed on the first date of posting, after recording the plea of the accused, I am Crl.Appeal No.1225 of 2010 2 of the view that the learned Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the accused u/s.256(1) of Cr.P.C., only for the reason that the complainant was not present on that particular date. In the result, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order dated 8.1.2010 in S.T.No.739/08 of the trial court. Accordingly, the appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on 10.8.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed with the same in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/