IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3786 of 2010() ---------------------- CMP.490/2010 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KANNUR ............... PETITIONER : ------------------ SEBASTIAN P.K., S/O. KURIAN, PONMANKAL HOUSE, AZHIKODE P.O., VANKULATH VAYAL, KANNUR-670 011. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHETHAN KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, CRYSTAL CREDIT CORPORATION, ROOM NO.3, RAMANAN ROAD, SOW CARPET, CHENNAI-600 031. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3786 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 15th September, 2010 O R D E R Respondent, the accused in C.M.P.490/2010, a petition filed under the proviso to Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-F order condoning the delay on cost. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned Magistrate has allowed the Crmc 3786/10 2 application without applying his mind disregarding the provisions of Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act on payment of cost and it is illegal and therefore, the order is to be quashed. 4. Annexure-D is the petition filed to condone the delay of 44 days, numbered as C.M.P.490/2010 by Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. First respondent, the power of attorney holder of the complainant filed an affidavit in support of the application stating that complaint should have been filed on or before 28/12/2009 but as he was laid up due to chicken pox, he was not able to lodge the complaint within the period and the delay was not due to any willful negligence and hence, it is to be condoned. Annexure-E notice was served on the petitioner directing Crmc 3786/10 3 the petitioner to appear and raise objections if any, in C.M.P.490/2010 on 24/4/2010. By Annexure-F order learned Magistrate allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. Argument of the learned counsel is that sufficient time to file objection was not granted and learned Magistrate should not have allowed the application. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner did not raise any objection before the learned Magistrate, though he appeared on 24/4/2010 and application was allowed only on 5/5/2010, and the fact that power of attorney holder of the complainant who lodged the complaint was laid up due to chicken pox was not denied before the learned Magistrate, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-F order. Though the order does not specifically Crmc 3786/10 4 show that Magistrate has recorded that complainant had suffered cause for not making the complaint within the period, it is implied in the order. Hence I find no reason to set aside the order as sought for. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.