IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 94 of 2001(C) ------------------------------- ST.1021/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- T.V.SHAJAN, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, PUTHUR.P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. RUGMINI, W/O.SIVARAMAN, AGED 43, MENOTH HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R.1 R2 - BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No. 94 of 2001-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal which is at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below, while acquitting the accused, passed the following order on April 18, 2000. “Accused present. Complainant absent. No counsel present. No representation. Hence complaint is dismissed. Accused acquitted u/s. 256 Cr.P.C” It is brought to my notice that the complainant was examined as Pw.1. But it appears that on a request made by the accused the complainant was directed to make himself available for further cross examination on payment of Rs.100/- as cost by the accused. 2. The above order was passed on March 24, 2000. On April 13, 2000 when the case came up for consideration, both the complainant and accused were absent. Therefore the learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and the case was posted for examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code. It was thereafter that the case had come up for consideration on April 18, 2000 when the impugned order was passed. Crl.A.94/2001 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that to his knowledge the accused had not remitted the cost as directed by the court below. Anyhow, he submits that the complainant is prepared to appear before the court and make himself available for further cross examination, if ordered so. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am satisfied that the appellant is entitled to be given a further opportunity to prosecute his case. 5. Therefore the impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted to the court below. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible , at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Appellant and accused shall appear before the trial court on January 17, 2009. The undertaking given by the both the learned counsel that their clients will co-operate with the court for an expeditious disposal of the case is also recorded. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.