IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1116 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/03/2010 IN CMP 2445/09 IN ST.217/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.KUNJHAN, VARIYATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU, KODANAD DESOM, MEZHATHUR AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, THIRUTHINMEL KARIYIL VEEDU, KODANAD DESOM, MEZHATHUR AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 1116 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 31st day of March, 2010 ORDER Revision petitioner who is the accused in S.T.No.217/2008 on the file of the JFCM, Pattambi, challenges the order dated 11.03.2010 in C.M.P.No.2445/2009 as per which the learned Magistrate has held that the statutory notice was served on 28.12.2007 and therefore there is no delay in filing the complaint and that even if it is found that the statutory notice was served on 22.12.2007 the delay of six days in filing the complaint has to be condoned. 2. The above case is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cheque amount is Rs.25,000/-. The complaint was filed by the respondent without any petition to condone delay on the premise that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation. At the fag end of the trial when the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was over the accused raised a contention that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation without a petition to condone delay. Thereupon the complainant filed C.M.P.No.2445/2009 for Crl.R.P. NO. 1116 of 2010 -:2:- condoning delay of six days if any in case the court found that the statutory notice was served on 22.12.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the acknowledgment card produced by the complainant shows that the date of service of the notice is seen corrected as 28.12.2007 instead of 22.12.2007 which was the actual date on which the notice was served. It is too early to say that there is a correction in the said date. If the notice was served on 28.12.2007 as the acknowledge card reveals the complaint was filed within time. But, if the notice was served on 22.12.2007 as contended by the revision petitioner then there will be six days delay in filing the complaint. It is essentially for the accused to substantiate his contention that the statutory notice was actually served on 22.12.2007 and the date 28.12.2007 occurring on the acknowledgment card has been corrected. In case the revision petitioner succeeds in substantiating the contention when the case stands posted for defence evidence, the court below shall give him an opportunity to raise the question of limitation. With the above observation, this revision is dismissed. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ Crl.R.P. NO. 1116 of 2010 -:3:- ani.