EASTERN RUBBERS KOOVALLOOR P O PALLARIMANGALAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTANT P M MUJEEB Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant/company 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 as it is aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) HEARD counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. It is beyond dispute that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs. 1,04,900/- and though the court has taken cognizance based upon the complaint preferred by the appellant connected with the dishonour of the above cheque, there is no decision on merit. It is also relevant to note that the complainant's evidence has already been closed during the trial of the case and the impugned order was passed when the case was posted for considering the petition filed by the defence under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The order impugned in this appeal is issued in printed form and this Court is not in a position to consider the correctness of the order impugned since no reasons are given for issuing an order under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. especially when the evidence of the complainant is over. But, it is relevant to note that though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the complainant, no material is produced to substantiate such a contention. It is an admitted fact that the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for the defence evidence on 17.12.2006. The appellant has not produced any document including the order sheet of the court below to show the proceedings recorded by the trial court on 17.12.2006. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the complainant in appearing before the court below on the date of the impugned order cannot be ruled out. Therefore, according to me, especially in the light of the facts stated hereinbefore, one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit but subject to terms, as there was laches on the part of the complainant.