SUBAIDA BEEVI BUNDIL VEEDU Vs. HARIHARA IYER GANESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as she is aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2012 of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial First Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.590 of 2007, by which the learned Magistrate, acquitted the accused under section 256(1) Cr.P.C.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that, on the date of the impugned order, as the counsel appearing for the complainant was engaged in another court, he had made arrangement through another counsel to represent the said counsel and also the complainant. But because of the rush in the court, the said counsel did not hear the calling of the case and consequently when the case was called, the complainant was not represented by anybody. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that since the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.35,000/-, one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter.

(3.) IN the result, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order dated 21.1.2012 of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial First Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.590 of 2007, on condition that the appellant/complainant deposits a sum of Rs1.500/-(Rs. One thousand five hundred only) in the trial court, on 14.5.2012. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the case on 14.5.2012, on which date the appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the trial court. On satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that the complainant deposits the amount as directed above, the learned Magistrate is further directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. On deposit of Rs.1500/-, a sum of Rs.1000/- (R.One thousand only) shall be paid to the accused on his appearance and the remaining amount of Rs.500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer.