M.K.SANJEEV Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the appellant since he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.9.2000 in C.C.No.1055 of 1996 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ernakulam, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate issued the impugned order inspite of the fact that the complainant was represented and an application was filed to excuse his absence. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that there is no laches or negligence in taking steps towards the prosecution of the complaint. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, since the amount involved in this case is Rs.50,000/-, an opportunity may be given to the appellant to prosecute the matter on merit.

(3.) IN the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial court. It is relevant to note that though the complaint was filed on 13.12.1996, as on the date of the order, ie., 6.9.2000, the process against the accused is not completed whose address is given as a resident of "Bangalore". The presence of the complainant as well as the respondent were inevitable towards the progress of the prosecution. But because of the failure on the part of the appellant/complainant in taking appropriate steps in time, the presence of the accused could not be secured and the appellant/complainant was also not present on the date of the impugned order. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate of the court below in exercise of his discretionary power under section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.