IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1779 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.856/2007 Dated 25/09/2007 CC.935/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------- P.A.KUNJU MUHAMMED, S/O.ADIMA KUTTY, PAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD NO.VIII, NEAR KADATHUKADAVU, ALUVA-I. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MEETHIYAN KUNJU RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PASEAL @ PRAKASHAN, S/O.LATE CHACKO, KATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR NIRMALA HIGH SCHOOL, PATTERIPURAM, ALUVA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.A.No.1779 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the order of the acquittal recorded in favour of the accused. Without issuing notice in the delay petition, the delay was condoned and finally leave was granted on 25.9.2007 and notice before admission was ordered by this Court on 16.10.2007. The above appeal appears to be presented on 21.12.2001 and numbered in the year 2007. Though the matter has already been posted before the Registrar concerned, there was no representation. On 21.7.2011, the counsel for the appellant sought time to cure the defect. But no process was paid and again when the case was listed in the defect list on 20.10.2011 there was no representation, so this Court suo moto adjourned the case and posted to this date 2 Crl.A.No.1779 of 2007 as last chance. Today also there is no representation. The above conduct of both the appellant and the counsel would show that, they are not interesting in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/