BIJU P G Vs. NOUSHAD M H

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 23.2.2001 in S.T.No.1993 of 1999 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate- Kunnamkulam, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that, there was no wilful negligence or laches on the part of the complainant in appearing before the court below on the date of the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, due to the mistake committed by the clerk attached to the counsel for the complainant in the trial court in noting down the actual posting of the case, neither the complainant nor his counsel has appeared before the court below and it was under the above factual background, the learned Magistrate issued the impugned order. Therefore, the counsel submits that as the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs. 27,500/-, one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. LEARNED counsel for the respondent opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the complainant was regularly absent and had failed in prosecuting the matter effectively, therefore, no interference is warranted.