IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2163 of 2008() ------------------------------ C.M.P NO.636/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINT:- ---------------------------------------------------- THOMAS A CRUZ, PROPRIETOR, M/.THOMSON SANITATIONS, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. VIJAYAMOHANAN, T.C. 12/208, RALIYATH MANZIL, GREEN LANE, PLAMOODU PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2163 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P. No. 636 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The said case is a private complaint filed by the petitioner alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, involving a cheque for Rs.40,000/-. The revision petitioner appears to have produced the photo copy of the cheque dated 30.07.2006, photo copy of the cheque return memo dated 13.12.2006, copy of the notice dated 15.12.2006 and postal receipt showing despatch of the notice on 18.12.2006. The complaint was filed on 02.02.2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 19.06.2007 by passing the following order:- “Complainant absent. No representation. No whisper in the complaint regarding when the accused received the notice. No documents produced. Sufficient opportunities given. Hence dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.” 2. It is true that the petitioner did not produce the original of the dishonoured cheuqe and the original of the cheque return memo. According to him, he was advised to produce the same at the time of CRL.R.P. NO. 2163/ 2008 : 2: trial. Since the notice was sent by post, the petitioner produced the original postal receipt which will show that the statutory notice was sent on 18.12.2006. It is true that there was some latches on the part of the petitioner and his counsel in producing the originals of the cheque as well as the cheque return memo. But, the complainant certainly did not deserve a dismissal of his complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and C.M.P. No. 636 of 2007 shall stand restored to file. The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 16.07.2008, by which time he shall have cured all the defects in the complaint by producing the original documents and shall have done everything within his control for the further progress of the complaint. In case the petitioner is unable to produce the originals due to valid reasons, he shall furnish explanation in that behalf and produce certified copies of the originals, if that is possible. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv