IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 426 of 2003 ----------------------------- CRMP.23659/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER : PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.C.JOHNSON, S/O.CHAKKUNNI, THAIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MULLASSERY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.426 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August 2009 ORDER Petitioner is stated to be the complainant in a private complaint filed against one M.S.Manikandan, S/o Sankaran. 2. When the complaint was taken up for recording the sworn statement of the petitioner/complainant on July 3, 2002, it was noticed by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner was absent. It was further noticed that the complainant had continuously failed to appear before the court. Therefore the complaint was dismissed. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 3. The gist of the allegations in the complaint is that a cheque issued by the accused in discharge of a liability was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The further case of the complainant is that the accused had issued the said cheque knowing fully well that sufficient funds were not available in his account, and therefore he had committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It is seen that the complaint was filed on December 21, 2001. From the copy of the complaint which is made available for perusal, it Crl.R.P.No.426 OF 2003 :: 2 :: is seen that the complainant had not produced the cheque; nor had he produced the copy of the lawyer notice or the notice which was returned by the complainant unserved. 5. The case was called before the trial court on July 3, 2002. But on that day, the complainant was absent. Even on the previous occasion the complainant had failed to appear. 6. The alleged cause of action arose way back in March-April 2001. The impugned order was passed in July 2002. This revision petition has been pending before this court since 2003 and therefore, no laches can be attributed to the petitioner. But still, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it may not subserve the interest of justice if the case is remitted to the court below at this distance of time especially in the nature of the allegations made in the complaint. I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.426 OF 2003 :: 3 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.426 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 14th August 2009