IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 964 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.1422/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- M/S.BENHUR TRADERS & INVESTMENTS, PRIVATE LIMITED,REP BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.K.B.PRAKASH KUMAR,ASST.LEGAL MANAGER, M/S.BENHUR TRADES AND INVESTMENTS(P)LTD, MAS BUILDINGS,ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHIM.K.A,S/O.ALIKUTTY, ELAMAKKARA.P.O,KOCHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.964 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. ORDER The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner, as the complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2009 in CMP.No.1422/2009 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam by which the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.2,25,721/- and there was a mistake on the part of the clerk attached to the counsel for the complainant in the court below in taking down the actual date of posting and therefore, when the case was called neither the counsel for the complainant nor the representative of the complainant was present, which resulted in the impugned order. 3. From the impugned order it appears that there was negligence on the part of the complainant or his counsel in Crl.R.P.NO.964 OF 2011 2 appearing before the court below on consecutive posting date. But it is relevant to note that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.2,25,721/- and therefore, according to me it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to prosecute the matter on merit but the same can be ordered only on cost. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 21.11.2009 CMP No.1422/2009 of JFCM-I, Ernakulam, on condition petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,250/- within one month from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/complainant directed to appear before the trial court on 5.5.2011, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to re-store the complaint on file on his satisfaction that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.2,250/- and the learned Magistrate is further directed to proceed with the complaint, if the same is otherwise in order, and to dispose it on merit in accordance with the procedure and law. Out of Rs.2,250/- which will be deposited by the Crl.R.P.NO.964 OF 2011 3 complainant, a sum of Rs.1,250/- shall be paid to the accused on his appearance and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. If the learned Magistrate after consideration of the complaint on merit if decided not to proceed with the complainant, the amount set apart for the accused shall also to be deposited in the state Exchequer. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm