IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 CRL.A.No. 810 of 2004() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.196/2004 Dated 18/03/2004 CC.330/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- A.K.BABU, S/O. KOCHAPPAN NAIR, AGED 40, ATTUVALLY HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. M/S. PALAMATTOM CHITTIES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.ABDUL MAJEED RAWTHAR, AMBADY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL MAJEED RAWTHER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.PALAMATTAM CHITTIES (P)LTD. AMBADY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No. 810 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from an order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). 2. Appellant filed a complaint against respondents 1 and 2 alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was taken on file in the year 2001. Accused entered appearance and plea was recorded and thereafter, the case was posted for evidence to several dates since 27.7.2002 onwards. The proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. Thereafter, on 5.12.2003 accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Code since the complainant was absent and no application was filed. 3. At the time of hearing, both sides were absent. There was no representation for appellant or respondent. On going through the impugned order and the proceedings, I am [Crl.Appeal No.810/2004] 2 satisfied that the impugned order is illegal, since it is passed not on either of the two days specified in Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in P.V. Joseph v. State of Kerala (2010 (4) KLT 697). In the result, the following order is passed: 1) The impugned order is set aside. 2) The case is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. 3) Parties shall appear before the trial court on 25.7.2011. This appeal is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.