High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.M & M Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S.M & M Distributors vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 1528 of 2007()


1. M/S.M & M DISTRIBUTORS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHRI. ABDUL SALAM.E.A.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :27/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
                     Crl.A.1528/2007
                       --------------------
          Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008

                       JUDGMENT

The complainant in C.C.No.785/2002 on the files of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, is the

appellant herein. The complainant was represented by a

Power of Attorney holder. The calender case arose out of

a complaint filed against the second respondent for an

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

2. It is the case of the complainant that the case stood

posted before the Court below on 28.3.2005. Substance of

the charge was read over and explained to him and then it

was posted to 2.12.2005 for the evidence of the

complainant. The complainant was present on the said

day, but due to heavy work in the Court, matter stood

adjourned to 3.3.2006. There was no sitting on the said

day and then it stood adjourned to 9.6.2006. According to

the complainant, case was not called and on enquiry it

was found that it has been referred to Adalath. But the

Cr.A.1528/2007
2

appellant and the counsel did not have any knowledge

about the Adalath. Thereafter, matter stood posted to

14.7.2006. It seems that the appellant and the counsel

were not aware of the postings. Finding that the

complainant is absent, the learned Magistrate proceeded

to acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.

Same has been challenged in the appeal.

3. Having heard learned counsel on either side and

having perused the order of the Court below, I am

satisfied that the complainant should be afforded another

opportunity to prosecute the complaint. In the

circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order of

acquittal is set aside and the complaint is restored to file.

The Court below shall further proceed with

C.C.785/2002.

Parties shall appear before the Court below on

17.11.2008.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs