CHANDRAN Vs. PADMANABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in C.C.No.361 of 1997 dated 16.02.2001, whereby the Trial Court, on account of the absence of the appellant/complainant on 16.02.2001 when the case was posted before it, not only acquitted the accused, but also dismissed the whole complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above appeal, it comes to be known that the appellant has filed the complaint against the respondent herein before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, on the ground of dishonouring of cheque of the Indian Bank, Kulasekarapattinam Branch, issued by the respondent for a sum of Rs.One lakh, for insufficiency of funds, hence praying for relief in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, from the order passed by the Court below dated 16.02.2001, it is seen that for non-appearance of the complainant when the case was called on that day either in person or by Pleader, the Court below acquitted the accused therein under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against which, on certain grounds, the complainant therein, has come forward to prefer the above Criminal Appeal.

(3.) The main contention of the appellant is that on 16.02.2001, having closed the entire evidence on the part of the complainant, the case stood posted for the witnesses of the respondent and the respondent was absent that day. Moreover, a Non-Bailable Warrant was pending against the respondent-accused and hence, the appellant would come forward to say that the Judicial Magistrate has failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand (A.I.R.1998 S.C. 596) and that the Judicial Magistrate was not fair in exercising the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 256 Cr.P.C., in the context of the case on that day.