IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2442 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.1311/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ERNAKU .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- M/S BELL LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE LTD., 40/9715, BHAGEERATHA SANTHAWANA, CHOTTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JOY JOHN, S/O. JOHN CHERIYAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR. SHINE D, S/O. DAMODHARAN, AGED 38, KOVALAYIL HOUSE, VENGALOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2442 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of August 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the complaint was dismissed under section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 15-01-2009 of court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-4, Ernakulam in S.T.No.1311 of 2008. Complaint was dismissed for absence of petitioner and as steps were not taken. It is submitted by learned counsel that the complaint was filed on 30-04-2008 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and the same was made over to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-4, Ernakulam. Case was posted on 07-01-2009. But the posting date was mistakenly noted as 17-01-2009. In the meantime it was taken up on 07-01-2009 and posted on 15-01-2009. On account of the mistake in noting the posting date there was no appearance on 07-01-2009 and 15-01-2009. Learned counsel says that failure to appear was not willful. 3. Having heard learned counsel I am inclined to think that there was no willful default on the part of petitioner in not appearing in the court. Petitioner has to be given an opportunity to prosecute the Crl.R.P.No.2442 of 2009 2 complaint further by taking necessary steps. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below for disposal after giving opportunity to the petitioner to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28-08-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/