IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3676 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.4859/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :- ----------------------------------------- A.K.SHAJI, A.K.MANZIL, M/S.A.K.STORE, NEAR RAILWAY CROSS, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SHAJI VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL, PROPRIETOR, SHAJI BROTHERS, NEAR RAILWAY CROSS, PUNALUR, KOLLAM REPRSENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HELDER BABU VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, AYIRANALLOOR P.O., AYIRANALLOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt CRL.M.C.No. 3676 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure A1 :- Copy of C.M.P.No.6550/2008. Annexure A2 :- Copy of the objection dt.10-12-2009. Annexure A3 :- Copy of the order dt.28-12-2010. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3676 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the accused challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate as per which the delay of 251 days in re-presenting the complaint was allowed by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay in re-presentation, no acceptable reason was stated. In the affidavit it is stated that the complaint was returned on 9.10.2007 giving two weeks time to cure the defects. But it was not re-presented within the time stipulated. In the petition it was stated that the complainant was laid up as he was having back pain. No medical certificate was produced. 2. However, considering all the aspects, the learned Magistrate found that the delay in re-presentation of the Crl.M.C. No.3676 of 2011 -: 2 :- complaint is to be allowed. It cannot be said that the complainant himself was responsible for not re-presenting the complaint within the time prescribed. As usual the mistake might have been committed by the office of the counsel as well. The complainant cannot be asked to suffer for the same. I find no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. This petition hence fails and is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt