IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1929 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRMP.924/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ M/S.HI BUILD COATINGS PVT. LTD. REP.BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.RAJAMOHAN K.G, PLOT NO.74, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-683 109, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. M/S.MOURYA MARKETING PVT. LTD. HOSPITAL ROAD, QUILON. 2. MR.PRADEEP KUMAR, DIRECTOR, M/S.MARKETING PVT.LTD, HOSPITAL ROAD, QUILON. 3. MR.SALIM, DIRECTOR, M/S.MOURYA MARKETING PVT. LTD. DOOR NO.3D, WEST GATE TERRACE APARTMENT, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA COCHIN. 4. MRS.SEBEENA SALIM, DIRECTOR, M/S.MOURYA MARKETING PVT.LTD, DOOR NO.3D, WEST GATE TERRACE APARTMENT, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA COCHIN. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R5. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1929 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint for non- prosecution. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the complaint was filed on 16.3.2009 and the complainant has produced stamped covers on 4.5.2009 for sending summons to the accused and subsequently the case is adjourned to 15.9.2009, for the appearance of the accused on which date there was no sitting and the case was notified as adjourned to 19.12.2009, on which date the impugned order is passed. 3. From the impugned order it is not discernible as to whether the accused has appeared in pursuance to the summons, if any issued against him. From the facts submitted by the learned counsel and also on going by the orders of the courts below, it can be seen that even if the complainant is present on Crl. R.P.No.1929 of 2010 2 the date of the impugned order, there would not be any fruitful turn out as the accused is yet to appear. Therefore, according to me the learned Magistrate ought not have issued such an order, especially in the light of the decision of this court in (2005(2) KLT 1003) Don Bosco Vs. Partech Computers Ltd. Therefore I am of the view that, this order can be set aside and thereby the revision petitioner can be granted one more opportunity to prosecute the matter on merit. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 19.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.924/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/complainant is directed to appear before the said court on 2.8.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to proceed in accordance with law and procedure and dispose the same on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/