IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 479 of 2000(C) 1. ARUN BABU Petitioner Vs 1. THE MG.DIRECTOR Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER Dated :04/04/2008 O R D E R [ENTITY], J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [CASE NUMBER] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. ORDER
This revision petition is at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The two accused in the case who are respondents 1 and 2 herein had, on their appearance before the trial court, filed an application pleading for discharge contending, inter alia, that the prosecution was incompetent inasmuch as the complainant had failed to file the complaint within the statutory period of limitation after service of the statutory notice on the accused.
2. It was revealed from the records (and admitted by the complainant too), that he had issued the statutory notice on August 14, 1997 when the cheque was dishonoured. The accused had accepted the notice which was produced by them before the learned Magistrate. But according to the complainant the notice issued by him was not properly addressed and therefore he had issued another notice in the correct address in October 1997.
3. The specific case of the complainant in the complaint was that he had presented the cheque yet again on September 25, 1997 and it was again dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused, on September 27, 1997. He issued another demand notice thereafter on October 4, 1997. Thus the admitted position was that the complainant had presented the cheque twice and had issued two statutory demand notices.
4. The complainant having failed to launch the prosecution after issuing the first statutory notice, the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted at all. However the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY] v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (3) KLT 382 (SC) in which it had been held that a subordinate criminal court cannot, in the absence of any review power or inherent power, invoke [SECTION] of the Code and discharge the accused after taking cognizance and issuing process to the accused under [SECTION]. The learned Magistrate had relied on the decision reported in K.M.Mathew v. State of Kerala & anr. (1992 (1) KLT 1 (SC . The said judgment was over ruled by the Larger Bench in [ENTITY]'s case supra. Therefore the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The court below shall dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law.
5. Parties shall appear before the trial court on August 6, 2008. Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
an. [ENTITY], Judge.