High Court of KeralaCRL.A/1749/2005dismissed

Josco Agencies v. K.P.Sajeev

2015-07-16Honourable Mr. Justice P.D.Rajan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015/25TH ASHADHA, 1937 CRL.A.No. 1749 of 2005 ( ) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 550/2003 of J.M.F.C.-V, KOZHIKODE DATED 13-04-2004 -------------------- APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

--------------------------------------------- JOSCO AGENCIES, 8/50 MOONALINGAL, CALICUT-673 032, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, HOLDER, K. RAMKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SRI.MANJU R.KARTHA RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:

------------------------------------------------------

1. K.P.SAJEEV, PROPRIETOR, ALLEPPEY TRADE LINKS, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

R2 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STK

P.D. RAJAN, J.

------------------------------- C.R.A.No.1749 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.550/2003 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode which was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 13.04.2004, complainant was absent, the counsel for the complainant was also absent No representation and the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. This appeal is filed in the year 2005. After filing this appeal several directions were given to the appellant to take steps against the first respondent, but he neither furnished the correct address of the first respondent nor remitted the process fee. On 12.12.14, it was instructed to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to take instruction whether appellant wants to prosecute the case any further. Even after that direction also, no step was taken.

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the appellant is absent. The learned counsel for the appellant is also absent. No representation. In the light of the non-compliance of the directions, it is presumed that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. P.D. RAJAN, STK JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A.