IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1027 of 2005 ------------------------------- (By order dated 13.6.2005 in Crl.L.P.No.259 of 2005, granted leave AGAINST CRA.85/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR & CC NO.645/1999 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THRISSUR) ................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------- M.C.JOHNY, MANJALI HOUSE, PUTUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DENNY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED. ---------------------------- 1. V.K.KUNJU AHAMED, PROPRIETOR OF KEKKA COMPLEX, S/O.ALLIKUTTY, VAIDYAMKANDIVEEDU, KUTTYADI P.O., VADAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 1027 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The above appeal is preferred at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'), since the lower appellate court, by judgment dated 2.4.2004 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2003, acquitted the accused though the trial court convicted him for the said offence. 2. This Court by order dated 13.6.2005 in Crl.L.P.No.259 of 2005, granted leave to file appeal and the above appeal firstly came up for admission on 19.8.2005 and it was adjourned to 22.8.2005 probably for the reason of non-representation. Thus, by order dated 22.8.2005, this Court ordered 'post when moved again'. The Registry of this Court, on noticing that the process memo has not been received in the Section and the service is not complete, posted the above matter in the defect list on 1.8.2011. But, on 1.8.2011 also, CRL.A.NO.1027 of 2005 :-2-: there was no representation and hence, this Court suo motu, as a last chance, posted the matter after ten days and thus, the appeal comes up for consideration today. Today also, there is no representation. From the above conduct of the appellant, the only inference that can be drawn is that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, where the challenge is against the judgment dated 2.4.2004 of the lower appellate court by which the accused is acquitted and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ CRL.A.NO.1027 of 2005 :-3-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. CRL.A.No. OF 20 CRL.A.NO.1027 of 2005 :-4-: JUDGMENT Dated:2. ..2011