SALEENA SHAHUL Vs. HARIKRISHNAN.V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had laid a complaint against the first respondent herein on the strength of a dishonoured cheque for a sum of Rs.35,000/ -. The accused appeared and thereafter the case was posted to 31.03.2015. On that day, the appellant and his counsel were absent. Hence, the court below, noting the fact that on the previous posting dates the complainant remained absent, acquitted the accused invoking Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C. This is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Heard both sides and examined the records.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the appellant and his counsel were absent on 31.03.2015. In fact, copy of the diary extract was also made available by the learned counsel for the appellant which shows that the appellant was absent on 06.03.2015, 26.03.2015 and also on 31.03.2015. On all the three days, the appellant and his counsel were absent. Ms.S.Indu, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly conceded that it was due to an inadvertent error that the appellant remained absent. Learned counsel sought for granting an opportunity to prosecute the matter.