IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 360 of 2005() ----------------------------- CRA.127/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.270/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER:1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- MRS.SUJATHA. S. NAMBIAR, W/O. DR.R. CHANDRAN, C/O. DR. MRS.SHARADA, KALAMADAM, RAJAPURAM, KANHANGAD-671 582. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.V.TEKCHAND RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. RAMAPPA, RESIDING AT FERRY ROAD, BOLAR, MANGALORE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R1 BY P.P.SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2304/2005 IN CRL.R.P.NO.360/2005 DISMISSED 25.8.2008. SD/= V. GIRI, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ cl V. GIRI, J. --------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.360 OF 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The complainant in C.C.No.270/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg, is the petitioner herein. The case was instituted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo R.I for a period of six months. The accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod as Crl.A.No.127/2001. The appellate court did not interfere with the conviction and sentence but remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh disposal. The said order has been challenged in this revision. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the accused. 2. The appellate court has essentially given two reasons for directing a fresh disposal of the case. Firstly, it is noted by the appellate court that the complainant has two bank accounts in Mangalore wherein she is a permanent resident. Therefore, there must be some explanation on the part of the complainant to present the cheque in a bank at Rajakumari. It is secondly noted CRL.R.P.N.360/2005 . 2 by the appellate court that the details of the transaction as such have not been considered by the court below. After interfering with the findings of the learned magistrate in this regard, the learned Sessions Judge felt that the complainant has to be given an opportunity to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was handed over to her in discharge of a liability. Accordingly the case was remitted back to the trial court. 3. Taking note of the fact that the case only stands remitted back to the trial court for a fresh disposal, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the appellate court. But in circumstances where the appellate court itself found that the complainant must be given an opportunity to prove her case and further taking note of the fact that the appellate court has directed fresh disposal, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court should be directed to dispose of the case afresh but untrammelled by the discussion made by the appellate court in its judgment. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of making it clear that the trial court shall proceed further with C.C.No.270/1998 as already directed by the appellate court in its judgment and dispose of the case a fresh. But, it is further made clear that the trial court CRL.R.P.N.360/2005 . 3 shall proceed further with the matter untrammeled by any of the observations made by the appellate court in its judgment. The parties shall appear before the court below on 28.10.2008. V. GIRI, JUDGE. cl