Kerala High Court
G.F.S.Chits & Loans (P) Ltd vs V.K.Bhramadas on 2 February, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/4TH ASWINA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 538 of 2009 ( )
--------------------------
IN Crl.L.P. 417/2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02-02-2009
IN ST 4543/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR
DATED 16-01-2008
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------
G.F.S.CHITS & LOANS (P) LTD.,
POOTHOLE ROAD, THRISSUR-4,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER SUNIL GEORGE,
(NOW REPRESENTED BY LITIGATION CLERK, P.UNNIKRISHNAN).
BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE:
--------------------------------
1. V.K.BHRAMADAS, VENENGOTTE HOUSE,
VENGITANG GOVT. P.O., THRISSUR.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BKA/-
P.UBAID, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A.No. 538 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the complainant in S.T.No. 4543 of 2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, and the first respondent is the accused therein. The complainant brought the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that a cheque issued by the accused in discharge of a liability was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant is a Chits and Finance Company, and the amount covered by the cheque is said to be the amount due in a chitty transaction. The accused pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over to him. The complainant examined one witness, and proved Exts. P1 to P7 documents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found failure on the part of the complainant to prove due execution of the cheque in question, and also to prove Crl.A.No. 538 of 2009 -2- that the cheque is supported by consideration. The evidence of PW1 was not accepted by the trial court. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty, and he was acquitted by judgment dated 16.01.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant brought this appeal with the leave of this Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C..
2. When this appeal came up for hearing, the complainant remained absent in court. There was nobody to represent him in court. It appears that the complainant has realized the flaw on his part. Being an appeal against acquittal, the appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
P.UBAID JUDGE ds 16.08.2017