IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2759 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRMP.3706/2006 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT:PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD, MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER: WILSON GEORGE. BY ADV. SMT.BEENA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED:CR.PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRAMOD, S/O.RAJAPPAN, THEKKEVALAYAKALAN, NEDUMUDY, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2759 of 2007. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.3706/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner prosecuted the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In filing the complaint, there is a delay of 27 days. The revision petitioner sought for condoning the delay with a plea that the file was misplaced by the clerk and he availed leave due to illness and prayed for condoning the delay. On behalf of the revision petitioner, a Legal Officer was examined as Pw1. The learned Magistrate declined to give reliance to the evidence of Pw1 for the reason that the clerk who misplaced the file was not examined. The learned Magistrate had also found that in the affidavit it was averred that the misplaced file was traced out on 25.8.2006. Crl.R.P.No.2759 of 2007. -: 2 :- In the proof affidavit it was averred that the misplaced files were traced out during the month of May. There was contradictory statement in the matter of misplacement of files. 2. In the above circumstances, I find that the learned Magistrate was correct in disbelieving the explanation offered by the revision petitioner. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. Civil remedies are left open to the petitioner. The revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-