ANNAMMA KURIAKKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for petitioners, respondent No. 2 and the Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS revision at the instance of the legal representatives of the accused is in challenge of the dismissal of Crl. Appeal in confirmation of the conviction, sentence and direction for payment of compensation in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act" ). Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging that accused borrowed Rs. 48,000/- from him on 1. 5. 2000, he issued a cheque for the discharge of that liability but that cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and inspite of giving intimation to the accused as to the dishonour and demanding payment, he did not pay the amount. Learned magistrate found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to respondent no. 2. Accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 9 of 2003) was heard by learned Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track (Adhoc)-I, Thalassery. It is seen that counsel for appellant/accused was not available in the appellate court but learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for respondent No. 2 and perusing the records dismissed the appeal in confirmation of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) IT is submitted by counsel on both sides that the accused died during pendency of the Crl. Appeal but that fact was not brought to the notice of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Counsel for respondent No. 2 says that his counterpart in the appellate court was not informed about the death of appellant/accused.