IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 734 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.503/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------------- NAZEER, S/O.KOLANGAVATH HYDROSE KUTTY THALIKULAM AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HYDROSEKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYASOORIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SHAIJU, S/O.NAVENKETTY DAMODHARAN, THALIKULAM AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 734 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. ORDER In this revision petition which is at the instance of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the revision petitioner/complainant has primarily called in question the inadequacy of sentence imposed on the accused (respondent No.1). After holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, the trial court convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/= and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 ½ months. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the learned Magistrate was not justified in awarding such a flea-bite sentence, especially since the amount covered under Ext.P2 cheque was Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had not bothered to take steps to serve notice on respondent No.1/accused though several opportunities had been given. This revision petition has been pending before this Court since 2001. Though notice was attempted to be served on the accused, it had not fructified. 4. When this petition came up before the Bench in October 2007 notice was again ordered by speed post. After return of notice with the endorsement “addressee not known”, petitioner was given a further opportunity to take out fresh notice to the accused in the correct address. The said order was passed on November 30, 2007. However petitioner did not pay sufficient process fee and therefore Crl.RP.734/2001 2 the Registry did not issue notice to the accused. 5. On December 14, 2007 when the case came up for further consideration it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the defect in the process would be cured and notice would be taken out in the correct address. Therefore the case was adjourned to January 4, 2008. When the case came up again on January 10, 2008 a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to grant another opportunity to take out fresh notice in the correct address as a last chance. The prayer was granted. But still no steps have been taken by the petitioner in this regard till date. 6. Today learned counsel for the petitioner prays for another opportunity to take out fresh notice. But I am afraid, the petitioner has not been diligent at all in prosecuting the case. In the above facts and circumstances I am not inclined to grant any further opportunity to the petitioner. Nevertheless I have perused the order impugned in the case. I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case no interference is warranted in the matter of sentence. Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.