IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2007 of 2009 ------------------------------ ST.317/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- B.S.VIMAL KRISHNAN, S/O.G.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SENIOR EXECUTIVE, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NAZEEMA COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/STATE AND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SASIKALA, SANKARAMANGALAM, THADIYOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009 ALON WITH CRL.R.P.NO.2008 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2007 of 2009 & 2008 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing the complaints under Sec.204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 2. These revisions arises from dismissal of the private complaint preferred by petitioner against respondent No.2 alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per separate orders dated 28-04-09 complaints were dismissed under Sec.204(4) of the Code. Learned magistrate has observed that on 28-04-09 petitioner was absent and no steps were taken to issue process against respondent No.2 in spite of repeated direction. Learned counsel submits that on 28-04-09 though petitioner was absent there was an application to excuse his absence. Direction was issued on 19-02-09 to take necessary steps but that was omitted to be taken note of by the clerk of advocate Crl.R.P.No.2007 & 2008 of 2009 2 who was appearing for petitioner in the court below. It is accordingly that steps could not be taken on 28-04-09. I do not find reason to think that there was willful default on the part of petitioner. Hence I am inclined to give the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his complaints by taking necessary steps. Resultantly these revisions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remitted to the court of learned Chief Additional Magistrate, Kollam for fresh disposal after giving petitioner an opportunity to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 05-08-09. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/