IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2459 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.1312/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- M/S.BELL LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE LTD, DOOR NO.40/9715, IST FLOOR, BHAGEERATHA SANTHWANA, CHITTOR ROAD, KOCHI-18, REP.BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JAYAPRAKASH N. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. SIDHIQ E, S/O,IBRAHIMKUTTY,KUTTIPURATHU, VENGA PO, SASTHAMCOTTAI-690 569. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2459 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against respondent No.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner case was transferred suo motu by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kochi with a direction that the re-filed number of the case and posting date could be collected from the transferee court. Petitioner was under the impression that the case will be numbered and called in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. But it happened that the case was numbered and called in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kochi and hence petitioner could not be present in that court when the case was called. I find no reason to disbelieve the submission of learned counsel. I am satisfied that absence of petitioner or counsel in the court below was not wilful. Hence I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to proceed with the complaint. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside Crl.R.P.No.2459/2009 2 and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate -IV, Kochi to proceed with the complaint as provided under law after giving petitioner an opportunity to take steps if any. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 28.8.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks