JUDGMENT

The appellant laid a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the strength of a dishonoured cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Pending the proceeding, warrant was issued to the accused and the case stood posted to 16.01.2009. On that day, the complainant and his counsel were absent and the court below by the impugned order acquitted the accused invoking Section 256 (1) of the Cr.P.C. This is impugned in this appeal.

2. Heard the appellant. First respondent has not appeared in spite of service of notice.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the posting date was wrongly taken down as 16.02.2009 instead of 16.01.2009. I am not inclined to accept this contention, since copy application is seen filed on 21.01.2009 which negatives the contention.

Crl.A.1210/12

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decisions reported inSubhash B. Ravu Vs. Varghese (2010(4) KLT 535) and Joseph Vs. State of Kerala ( 2010(4) KLT 697 ) contended that the court below was not legally justified in dismissing the complaint invoking Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., when the matter stood posted for the appearance of the accused. There is nothing