IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 722 of 2003() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2003 IN CRMP.1202/03 IN CC.273/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- IND EXPORT LIMITED, 'APEX PLAZA' IV FLOOR, NO.3, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, MADRAS-34, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE ANGELLO, SALES OFFICER (SUBSTITUTED BY R.RAMESH BABU AS PER ORDER DT.17.6.02 IN CRL.M.P.NO.1350/01 OF THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM) BY ADVS. MR.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. NAZAR.T.A., M/S. BEST TRADERS ALSO KNOWN AS 'NEW SOTRES', MUKKADA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-1 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.P.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.725 OF 2003 ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 722 of 2003 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2641 OF 2003 IN CRL. R.P.NO.722 OF 2003 DISMISSED. 18.6.2009 SD/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NOs.722 & 725 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 ORDER These revision petitions arise from separate orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam in Crl.M.P.No. 1202/2003 in C.C.No.273/1998 and Crl.M.P.No.1201/2003 in C.C.No.272/1998, respectively. Learned counsel for petitioners in both cases submit that revision petitions are not pressed. 2. Challenge is to dismissal of the petitions under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioners filed complaints against respondent No.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioners which are limited companies were represented by its representatives. Several petitions were filed after the closure of evidence on behalf of petitioners to re-open the case for further evidence. It is seen from the orders under challenge that some of those petitions were allowed by learned Chief Judicial magistrate. Ultimately, C.M.Ps referred above were filed to re- open the case to examine the then representatives of the Crl.R.P.No.722/03 & Con.case 2 petitioners - Companies and to prove certain documents. Those petitions were dismissed by learned Chief Judicial magistrate vide separate order. 3. In fact, a revision itself is not maintainable, as the orders passed are interlocutory in nature and Section 397(2) of the Code prohibited revision from such order. But this Court can exercise power under Section 482 of the Code as well even if the revision is found to be not maintainable. In this case considering the nature of the order passed by learned magistrate and submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I am not satisfied that there is any illegality committed by learned chief Judicial magistrate so that this court should invoke power under Section 482 of the Code. Revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.722/03 & Con.case 3