SURESH KUMAR P.B Vs. ANIMOL

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 10.9.2009 in S.T.No.254 of 2009 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Muttom, Thodupuzha, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) HEARD the counsel for the appellant and I have perused the judgment impugned in this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order was passed on the fist date fixed for the appearance of the accused and according to the learned counsel and there was no negligence either on the part of the complainant or his counsel in appearing before the court below on the date of the impugned order. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant/complainant was busy with his business and therefore he had specifically directed his counsel to be present on the date of the impugned order and it is the further case of the appellant that the counsel for the complainant though instructed his colleague, namely advocate one Benny Mathew, to represent as complainant's counsel, the said counsel was little bit late in appearing before the court below when the case was called up, as he was held up in another court. Thus, according to the counsel, there was no negligence in appearing before the court below or in prosecuting the matter and considering the amount involved in the case, one more opportunity may be given to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the matter effectively.