IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 404 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CC.NO.218/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, HOSDURG. ........... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.M.ABDUL HAMEED,S/O.MAMMUNHI,RESIDING AT MIHARAJ MANZIL,THOTTI JUNCTION,PALLIKERA VILLAGE AND PO,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL AZEEZ,S/O.KADAPPURAM AZEEZ, AGED 36 YEARS,PARAVANGANAM,MOUVAL POST, PALLIKERA,KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671 314. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. 404 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 1.12.2010 in C.C.No.218 of 2010 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 2. Heard counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ complainant submitted that the complainant was not represented on the date of the impugned order since there is an omission on the part of counsel appearing for him before the court below in noting down the exact date. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.4 lakhs and in terms of the order dated 3.9.2010, the complainant has paid the process fee though belatedly on 26.11.2010. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that one more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on Crl.R.P.No.404 of 2011 :-2-: merit. 4. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.4 lakhs and the court has already taken cognizance upon the above complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, but so far there is no decision on merit. From the order impugned itself, it is clear that the complainant has already deposited the process fee as ordered by the court below though belatedly. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted one more opportunity to prosecute his complaint on merit, but subject to terms. In the result, the order dated 1.12.2010 in C.C.No.218 of 2010 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg is set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in the court below. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on Crl.R.P.No.404 of 2011 :-3-: 14th March,2011 on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file on his satisfaction that the petitioner has deposited the amount as directed above and issue fresh process to the accused in accordance with the procedure and law and accordingly, dispose of the complaint on merit. The amount deposited by the complainant towards the cost shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.404 of 2011 :-4-: