IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2007() ------------------------------ CMP.2727/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS ----------------------------- GROTHI MATHEW ,W/O. MATHEW, VELLOORKUNNU P.O., THIDUPUZHA VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- 1. DR. SAMSON PACHIKARA,S/O. ABRAHAM PACHIKKARA VEETTI, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 4604 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution launched under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There was a delay of 77 days in filing the complaint under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed along with an application to condone the delay. The petitioner was given notice. He entered appearance and opposed the application to condone the delay. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order allowed the prayer and condoned the delay. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The cheque bears the date 30/11/06. It was presented for encashment on 27/2/07. Notice of demand was issued on 24/3/07. The complaint was ultimately filed only on Crl.R.P. No. 4604 OF 2007 -: 2 :- 24/7/07. The complainant explained the delay with the plea that he was employed abroad and that he had got a Power-of-Attorney executed at his place of employment abroad and forwarded it to his counsel. The counsel felt that that the Power-of- Attorney was not properly executed and therefore could not file a complaint on the basis of that Power-of-Attorney. In these circumstances, the complainant claimed that he was compelled to come to India from his place of employment abroad in the U.S. He reached India on 16/7/07. He was laid up and the complaint could be filed only on 24/7/07. 3. The prayer was stoutly opposed by the petitioner. He contended that there is nothing to show that the complainant was employed abroad. He further contended that a properly executed Power-of-Attorney must have been made available before the due date to enable the Attorney to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant. It was further contended that from 16/7/07 to 24/7/07 there was 8 days delay and that delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 4. Notwithstanding the opposition, the learned Magistrate felt that there was satisfactory cause shown by the complainant and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. I have been taken through the impugned order. The Crl.R.P. No. 4604 OF 2007 -: 3 :- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the various contentions urged by the petitioner have not been considered in detail. Certainly a more detailed order could have been written. But I do note that all the material aspects had received the attention of the learned Magistrate who had after evaluating all circumstances come to the conclusion that the delay of 77 days deserves to be condoned. That the complainant is employed abroad; that he had made attempts to execute the Power-of- Attorney on 22/2/07 and that he had come to Indian on 16/7/07 are all borne out by materials from the records. Suffice it to say that I find absolutely no circumstance which necessitates the invocation of the revisional power of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.R.P. No. 4604 OF 2007 -: 4 :-