IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 338 of 2010() ------------------------ CRRP.81/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.3636/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.T.723,FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.ANILKUMAR,PULIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, THIRUMALA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S. U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 338 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have order dated 11.8.2009 in Crl.R.P. No.81 of 2007 passed by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram quashed and for a direction to receive the complaint filed by the petitioner on file. 2. Petitioner had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the petitioner is that the accused had owed an amount of Rs.21,826/- to him. For the discharge of the debt a cheque had been issued to him by the accused. On presentation of the cheque, it bounced, and he points out that notice was issued to the accused. The case of the petitioner is that he did not get the acknowledgment Crl.M.C.338/2010. 2 back and therefore he waited. He would further say that since he had not received the acknowledgment, he sent a letter to the postal authorities enquiring about the acknowledgment card. Therefore, when he finally received the reply from the postal authorities, he laid the complaint. He thus sought to explain the delay of 651 days in filing the complaint. 3. The trial court was not inclined to accept the case put forward by the petitioner for condonation of delay. It found that the claims made by the petitioner were unsubstantiated and dismissed the complaint. 4. Petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl.R.P. 81 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge by a well considered order and after considering all the aspects and the contentions put forward by the petitioner came to the conclusion that there is no substance in what the petitioner claims and there was no bonafides also. Holding so, the revision petition was dismissed. The said order is assailed in this petition. Crl.M.C.338/2010. 3 5. On going through the orders of the courts below, it is seen that the courts below have considered all the aspects and the various circumstances, which the petitioner pointed out for condonation of delay. Those are concurrent findings of fact and the case put forward by the petitioner cannot be accepted for reasons stated in the orders. In fact the Sessions Court considered the matter in considerable detail and had adverted to all the aspects put forward by the petitioner for condonation of delay and found that the claim made is not justifiable and not entertainable. There is no jurisdictional error or impropriety in the order passed either by the trial court or by the Sessions Court. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed in the revision. This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.