CHANDRALEKHA, LATHIKABHAVAN Vs. GEETHAKUMARI, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is the appellant, as he is aggrieved by the impugned order, by which the accused is acquitted under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and the accused in the present case had never appeared before the trial court and therefore one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant/complainant is negligent in prosecuting the matter and on an earlier occasion ie., on 08/03/2002 the complaint was once disposed under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C., acquitting the accused due to negligence of the complainant. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the said order was challenged by the very same appellant and this Court granted a further opportunity to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the matter as per the judgment of this Court dated 28/10/2002 in Crl.A.No.353 of 2002. It is thereafter the complainant defaulted in appearing before the court, which resulted in the order impugned in this appeal and therefore there is no justification in granting further opportunity.