IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 CRL.A.No. 2179 of 2006() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.502/2006 Dated 17/10/2006 CC.794/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- A.E. ABDUL AZEEZ, ARAYMKALAYIL, MARKET P.O., KAVUMKARA, VELLOORKUNNA, MOOVATTPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENT/ACCUSED/STATE: ----------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN. T., THADAYALAKUDIYIL PARAYIL, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ==================== Crl. Appeal No.2179 of 2006 -D =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the complainant in C.C.No.794/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Moovattupuzha, aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the said court under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. 2. From the order, it is clear that the alleged offence was committed on 14.2.2005 and the complaint was instituted on 2.4.2005. It is also stated in the order that when the matter was taken for consideration, the complainant was absent. No application was filed on behalf of the complainant and there was no representation also. Though the name of the complainant was repeatedly called in the open court, there was no response and accordingly the court below has passed the above impugned order. 3. This appeal was admitted on 17.11.2006. After that the matter stood for consideration on 5.9.2008 in the defect list since no process was received in the registry and on that day Crl. Appeal No.2179 of 2006 -D 2 there was no representation and hence case was posted for order on 22.9.2008. On 22.9.2008 also there was no representation and hence the matter stand posted to this date as a last chance. Today also when the matter taken up, defect is seen not cured. From the above, it can be seen that the complainant/appellant is negligent in prosecuting the complaint and appeal and impugned order of the court below also shows that no interference is called for. In the result, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. bkn/-