CRL.A No. 1549 of 2004 · Kerala High Court

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.--------------------------------Crl.A. No.1549 of 2004---------------------------------Dated this the 20th day of December 2012J U D G M E N TThe complainant is in appeal. The complaint was filed by him under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The accused therein was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Sec.256(1)Cr.P.C. Both sides have been heard. 2. On going through the order, it is seen that the accused was acquitted under Sec.256(1) Cr.P.C. since on the date when the case was called, the complainant was not present nor was he represented. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant was actually presentin court on 23.3.2004 and he also entered the court hall when the case was called. But his counsel was not presentas he was engaged in another court. Whatever that be, the learned Magistrate was not justified in acquitting the accused under Sec.256(1) Cr.P.C. immediately on finding Crl.A. No.1549 of 2004-: 2 :-that the complainant was not present, if it is actually true. Ifind that the order of acquittal is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Crl.A. is allowed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. Thecase is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties will appear before the learned Magistrate on 21.1.2013. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.Jvt