E KUPPUSAMY Vs. R KANNAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the complainant in c. C. No. 328 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode, against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not present in the Court on 19. 6. 2001,acquitting the accused under Section 256 (1) of Cr. P. C.

(2.) HEARD Mr. T. Muruga Manickam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant who would contend that the case was posted on 23. 4. 2001, on that day, the complainant was present, but the accused in spite of service of summons, has not appeared and hence the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued non bailable warrant for apprehending the accused and that the non bailable warrant remains unexecuted from 20. 10. 2000 to 19. 6. 2001, the date on which the order under challenge in this appeal was passed.

(3.) IN fine, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Erode in C. C. No. 328 of 2000 is set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to restore C. C. No. 328 of 2000 on his file and after securing the accused shall proceed with the trial. It is further represented by the learned counsel that the accused has been secured on24. 6. 2001 subsequent to the order passed and produced before the Court. If it is so, once again, the summons must be sent to the accused on payment of necessary process fee. The learned trial Judge is directed to secure the accused at an early date and dispose of C. C. No. 328 of 2000 within two months from the date of appearance of the accused. .