IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 226 of 2008 ------------------------------------ ST.714/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: M/S KOTTAYAM TRADING COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY KURIAN JOSEPH, PARTNER, KOTTAYAM TRADING COMPANY, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED &STATE: 1. K.C.ANTONY, K.K.CHACKO & COMPANY, MALLAPPALLY P.O., MALLAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.J.AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 226 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard. Appeal is one filed against the acquittal of the first respondent under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The relevant portion of the order of acquittal reads as follows: “Having undergone a few adjournments the case was posted for evidence to 22.8.07. On that day, complainant was absent and there was no representation also on his behalf. Hence, the case was adjourned to 23.8.2007 awarding cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) to the accused. But, on 23.8.2007 also, complainant was absent without being represented. Hence the case was again adjourned to this day specifically observing that it is a last chance. In spite of all these chances given, today also, complainant is absent and there is no representation also on CRA 226/08 2 his behalf. Cost awarded to the accused also stands unpaid. Since the case was repeatedly posted for evidence requiring the presence of the complainant and he being continuously absent without even being represented, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to invoke Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. In the result, accused is acquitted under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.” The above order passed by the court below speaks by itself and this is not a fit case, where an acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. deserves to be interfered with by this Court, especially when, the appellant was consistently disabling the court below from making any progress in the case. The court below was fully justified, in the circumstances, in acquitting the first respondent under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. CRA 226/08 3 This appeal is, hence, devoid of merit and deserves only to be dismissed, refusing admission. In the result, I dismiss this criminal appeal. 5th February, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv