IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1705 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.10819/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- DR.K.V.BHAVADAS, S/O.P.N.S.ACHAN, "KALABHAM", VYAPARAPPADI, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 1705 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 9-06-2008 ORDER The Revision Petition is the complainant in a prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving two cheques altogether for a sum of Rs. 29,000/-. The complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and registered as C.M.P. No. 10819 of 2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as per the impugned order dated 13-3-2008 dismissed the complaint mainly for the reason that there was no demand for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques and that if at all there was a demand in the lawyer notice it was only for the amount under the original transaction. 2. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate was taking a hyper- technical view of the matter . After calling for the records I perused the lawyer notice issued by the revision petitioner to the accused under Sec. 138 Cr.P.C. The notice contains a specific demand of the chque amounts after adverting to the factum of borrowal and issuance of two cheques for an amount totalling to Rs. 29,000/-. Crl.R.P. No. 1705 of 2008 -:2:- 3. The learned Magistrate was also wrong in dismissing the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. at the pre-cognizance stage. If according to the Magistrate, the complaint and the supporting documents produced along with the complaint did not make out the offence alleged the only course open to the Magistrate was to reject the complaint at that stage. Dismissal of a complaint under Sec. 203 can only be at the post cognizance stage. For that reason also the impugned order is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 4. Since the dismissal of the complaint was before the issuance of process to the accused, notice to the accused in this Revision is dispensed with. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed and C.M.P. No. 10819 of 2007 shall stand restored to file before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri who shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri on 27-6- 2008 without any further notice. Transmit back the entire lower court records forthwith. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) Crl.R.P. No. 1705 of 2008 -:3:- ani.