IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 28TH BHADRA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3272 of 2007() ------------------------------ STC.3738/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- KERALA STATE RUBBER CO-OPERATIVE LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANOJ KUMAR K.V,S/O. BALAN, FORMERLY THROUGH THE COMPANY SECRETARY OF RUBCO SALES INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD,KANNUR-2 CYRIL SHIBU, WHO HAS SINCE LEFT ITS SERVICE) BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND THE STATE ---------------------------------- 1. C.P.LATHEEF,M/S.M.M.MARKETING, NO.4, ROCKINS ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, TRICHY-620 001. 2. M/S.M.M.MARKETING, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER LATHEEF, NO.4, ROCKINS ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, TRICHY-620 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................. Crl. R.P. No. 3272 of 2007 ................................................... Dated, this the 19th day of September 2007 O R D E R The revision petitioner who is the complainant in S.T.C.3738 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M.-I, Kannur challenges the order dated 12-03-2007 passed by the magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. for the absence of the complainant as well as for the non-production of the the stamped cover for taking out summons to respondents 1 and 2 accused. In as much as the complaint was dismissed before issuing summons to the accused, notice to respondents 1 and 2 in this revision is dispensed with. 2. The amount covered by the cheque involved in the case is Rs. 70,000/-. The complaint was filed on 29-3-2006. th learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that stamped cover had been produced before the court below but it was omitted to be noticed. Whatever that may be, the revision petitioner does not deserve dismissal of his complaint. He should have been given an opportunity to produce the stamped cover if not already produced. Crl.R.P. No. 3272 of 2007 -:2:- Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and S.T.C. 3738 of 2006 is restored to file. The revision petitioner shall appear before the court below on 5-11-2007 without further notice. By that time, he shall have produced the stamped cover if not already produced for the further progress of the complaint. This Revision is allowed as above. V. Ramkumar, Judge. Crl.R.P. No. 3272 of 2007 -:3:-