P.P.JOSHY Vs. SEETHA NANDANAN

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 19.9.2009 in S.T.No.309 of 2006 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.

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

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, no evidence or material is produced to substantiate the claim of the appellant or to justify the absence of the complainant on 18.9.1999 and on 19.9.1999, ie., on the date of the impugned order, especially when the case was posted for the evidence of the complainant. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Magistrate had no option other than to invoke section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. and therefore no interference is warranted.