This appeal is filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent/accused.
3. The appellant approached the trial court with a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I Act') against the accused/respondent alleging that the accused borrowed money to a tune of Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque in discharge of that liability, which was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. After sending statutory notice, the complaint was filed. Accused entered appearance through a counsel initially and later he absconded. On various occasions, coercive steps were taken to secure his presence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 11-8-2003, the date on which the accused was acquitted, the counsel for the complainant could not reach the court in time and the court below acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C, recording that there was no representation for the complainant. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that there was no willful laches on the part of the complainant in not taking steps to issue warrant against the accused. Certainly the case should end up in a decision on merit. So, I find that the appeal is to be allowed and one more chance is to be given to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the matter further.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the court below dated 11-08-2003 acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed in accordance with law. The complainant shall appear before the court below on 8th December, 2014 and take appropriate steps without fail.
amk Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge