IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 344 of 2010()
1. M.A.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.T.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.344 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 1stday of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal
passed by the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate Court II, Hosdurg,
u/s.256(1) of Cr.P.C. in STC No.421/2009.
2. STC No.421/2009 is a case instituted upon the
complaint filed by the appellant herein for the offence u/s.138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the cheque is for an
amount of Rs.1 lakh. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the complainant was absent because he was
undergoing treatment for viral arthritis and therefore he could
not appear before the court below on 08.01.2010. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel that the wife of the
complainant was also undergoing treatment for cancer. It was
under the above circumstances, the complainant could not
appear in the Court below on the dates mentioned in the
impugned order.
3. From the impugned order, it appears that the accused
Crl.Appeal No.344 of 2010
2
was exempted from his personal appearance and the
complainant had also made an application through his counsel
to excuse his absence and to appear through the counsel.
However, no copy of the said petition is made available and the
learned counsel submitted that the absence was for the reason
stated above. Though the learned Magistrate had referred that
the application to condone the absence of the complainant and
dismissed the same, no reason is stated for rejecting the
request, especially when the case of the complainant/appellant
is that the absence was due to his treatment and also the
treatment of his wife. Hence without assigning reason, after
refixing the ground for absence application the dismissal of the
petition is not proper. Since the cheque in question is for an
amount of Rs.1 lakh, I am of the view that one more chance can
be given to the complainant but subject to terms.
In the result, this appeal is allowed on condition that the
appellant/complainant paying a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five
hundred only) in the Court below on his appearance.
Crl.Appeal No.344 of 2010
3
Accordingly, the complainant is directed to appear before the
Court below on 05.04.2010, on which date the Judicial Ist Class
Magistrate Court II, Hosdurg, is directed to restore the complaint
and on his further satisfaction, that the appellant had deposited
the amount as directed above, he shall proceed with the
complaint and dispose of the same on merit.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/
Hand over the order.