IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1675 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------ (AGAINST C.C. NO.1121 OF 2004, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-V, ERNAKULAM) REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------- THE MIRACLE TELEVISION NETWORK, DOOR NO.118-A, MANIVELIL HOUSE, PARAPALLY LANE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANTO P.P., PARAKAL HOUSE, VALLACHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ----------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. CLAPS, ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SRI. P.I.ZACHARIA. 2. K.K.RAJEEV, RAJEEV LANE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.I.ZACHARIA, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM. 4. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1675 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to is dispensed with since the impugned order is one passed under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) dismissing the complaint for non-payment of process fee. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for Respondent No.4. 3. Petitioner filed a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Nos.1 to 3. Petitioner did not produce process fee in spite of granting time and hence learned magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code. Counsel for petitioner submits that it was on a mistake in noting the posting date that there happened to be no representation and no payment of process fee. 4. I do not find reason to disbelieve that submission of learned counsel. There is no reason or circumstance to think that petitioner wilfully did not produce the process fee or fail to appear in the court below. Hence petitioner should get an opportunity to pay process fee and prosecute the complaint further. CRL. R.P. No.1675 of 2009 -: 2 :- Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court of First Class Judicial Magistrate-V, Ernakulam. Petitioner will get an opportunity to pay the process fee. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 20.6.2009 and pay process fee on that day itself. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL. R.P. NO. OF 2000 =================== O R D E R MAY, 2009