JOSEPH THOMAS Vs. M. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.400 of 2003 on the files of the court below. The appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent herein before the court below alleging offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. The court below as per order dated 24-01-2005, acquitted the accused under Sec. 256 (1) Crimial P.C., 1973 against which, this appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave from this Court.

(2.) It has been contended by the appellant that the appellant was laid up and hence the appellant was not in a position to appear before the court on 24-01-2005. An application was also filed on behalf of the appellant. However, the court below rejected the said application and acquitted the accused under Sec. 256 (1) Crimial P.C., 1973 The order impugned is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) The order impugned would show that the complainant was not having any representation before the court on 24-01-2005. However, the proceedings of the court below dated 24-01-2005 would show that the complainant was duly represented before the court. It appears from the proceedings of the court below that the complainant was absent on that day. However, an application was filed on his behalf. The said application was rejected by the court below, stating that the complainant failed to appear before the court to adduce evidence. Thus, it appears that the court below signed the order impugned without applying the mind.