SREEKUMAR Vs. S.K.VALSALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in S.T. No. 1282 of 1998 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad and he is challenging the order dtd. 12/5/1999, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short) under Sec. 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant was not present either in person or by Pleader.

(2.) Heard Sri. T.A. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. C.A. Chacko, the learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Magistrate had committed a grave illegality in acquitting the accused without affording the appellant an opportunity to explain the reason for his absence. It is pointed out that on 17/4/1999, the complainant was present and the accused was absent and hence, the case was posted to 30/4/1999 for return of the acknowledgment card regarding the service of summons to the accused and on 30/4/1999, the case was adjourned by notification to 12/5/1999 and on 12/5/1999, the impugned order was passed acquitting the accused under Sec. 256 Cr.P.C for the reason that the complainant was absent and there was no representation for the complainant.