IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 175 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRMP.6395/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT IN THE COURT BELOW: --------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S. INTEGRATED COMPUTER SYSTEM VELUKARAN BUILDING, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR. M.N. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ------------------------------------------------------ CRL. R.P.175 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: NOVEMBER 24, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is M/s. Integrated Computer System, Ernakulam, represented by its partner Radhakrishnan Nair. The revision petitioner filed a complaint as Crl.M.P.6395/2000 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Ernakulam, alleging offence under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the respondent/accused. As the revision petitioner/complainant was absent continuously, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that there was no reasonable ground for proceeding with the complaint by order dated January 31, 2001. The complainant has come up in revision challenging the said order of the trial court. 2. On going through the records and the nature of the contentions raised by the revision petitioner/complainant, I feel that an opportunity should be given to the complainant to proceed with the case. In the present case, though notice was issued, the accused remained absent. That being so, the revision petition has to be allowed and the order of the trial court in Crl. M.P.6395/2000 dismissing the said complaint has to be set aside. 3. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned CRL. R.P.175 of 2002 2 order of the lower court in Crl. M.P.6395/2000 dated January 31, 2001 dismissing the complaint is set aside. The lower court is directed to take the complaint on file and proceed with it in accordance with law. This being a case of the year 2000, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties shall appear before the trial court on 28.12.2009. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-