IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1217 of 2001() ------------------------------ CMP.2691/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- G.APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, GAYATHRI, T.C.5/1805, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU RESPONDENTS/THE STATE AND ACCUSED: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. UDAYAN, MADHAVA VILASOM, MANNARAKONAM, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1217 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. ORDER Revision petitioner preferred a complaint against the second respondent alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate vide, the impugned order dated 26.6.2001 dismissed the complaint. 2. There is no representation for the revision petitioner and second respondent before me. I perused the records. 3. The complaint was filed in the court below on 17.6.2000. On that day, revision petitioner was present. The case was posted on 2.9.2000. Revision petitioner was absent and that absence was excused on application. The case was then posted on 25.11.2000 on which day it was adjourned by notification to 19.12.2000. On 19.12.2000 and on four subsequent adjourned dates, revision petitioner remained absent. On all occasions except the last one (26.6.2001), request for exemption was also allowed. On 26.6.2001 the request for exemption was rejected and since in spite of several chances revision petitioner did not appear, the complaint was dismissed. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order under challenge requiring interference. Crl.R.P.No.1217/2001 2 Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.1217/2001 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.1217 of 2001 ORDER 25th September, 2008.