IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4059 of 2008() ------------------------------ ST.1826/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- P.S.VAIDYANADHAN S/O. SUBRAMANYA IYER, AGED 63 YEARS, NO.14,F-3 SRUTHILAYA APARTMENT,VENKITESWARA NAGAR, 1ST EXTENSION CROSS STREET,SAYIGRAMAM,CHENNAI-93, PROPRIETOR,M/S.RESMI ARTS INERNATIONAL, REP.BY P/A.HOLDER A.K.BIJU, AYAKULANGARA VEEDU, P.O.NADUVATHAPARA, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE OF KERALA: ------------------------------------------- 1. LOHITHADAS, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, SANTHINIKETHAN, THOTTAKKATUKARA POST, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 4059 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the complainant and first respondent the accused in S.T.1826 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Revision petitioner is challenging the order dropping the proceedings by the learned Magistrate as first respondent deposited the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, on getting the summons from the Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that when the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed and learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, deposit of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque later will not obliterate the offence and therefore learned Magistrate should not have dropped the case. Though technically the argument of the learned counsel is correct and payment of the amount covered by the cheque by the drawer of the cheque subsequent to the commission of the offence may not be a ground to avoid the offence, CRRP 4059/2008 2 facts of the case reveal that immediately after receipt of the summons from the Court, first respondent, who did not receive the notice sent under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, deposited the entire amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Though the amount was not deposited within two weeks from the date of receipt of the summons, the summons was not accompanied by the complaint, and first respondent deposited the amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of summons. It is in such circumstances learned Magistrate permitted the revision petitioner to withdraw the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque deposited by first respondent in Court and dropped the proceedings. In the nature and facts and circumstances of the case I find no reason to interfere with the order. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb