IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 636 of 2001() ----------------------------- Crl.MP.754/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ MRUDUL TIMBERS, VENGINISSERI, THRISSUR, PROPRIETOR SHIJI SALEESH REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AJAYAN, S/o. KATTUNGAL SREEDHARAN VENGINISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE OF KERALA: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THRISSUR DIST.S.C.& S.T MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., R.740-REPRESNTED BY SECRETARY, THRISSUR DT.S.C.& S.T.MOTOR TRANSPORT CO.OP. SOCIETY LTD.,R.740, P.O. AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 2. SECRETARY, THRISSUR DT.S.C. & S.T.MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY R.740, P.O. AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -3. 3. EX.OFFICIO PRESIDENT (R.D.O) THRISSUR DIST.S.C. & S.T.MOTOR TRANSPORT CO.OP.SOCIETY LTD.R.740, P.O. AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 4. THE STAE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.636 of 2001 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and having perused the materials available on record, I am satisfied that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 2. It is seen from the impugned order that the complaint filed by the petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed on the ground that neither he nor his counsel was present when the case was taken up for recording the sworn statement. I am satisfied that petitioner has to be given a further opportunity to prosecute his case. 3. Though respondent No.3 has not been served in the case so far in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied this order will not cause any prejudice to him. Obviously, if cognisance is taken notice will have to be issued to respondent No.3 also. Crl.r.p.nO.636/2001 2 4. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The criminal revision petition is allowed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs