IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1900 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.4204/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ P.M.BAVA @ KHALID, S/O MUHAMMED, THIRUVALLATH VEEDU, VETTIKATTIRI, PAIKULAM ROAD, CHERUTHURUTHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31. 2. K.USMAN,S/O IBRAHIM, KOTTILINGAL VEEDU, NETHIRIMANGALAM, OTTAPALAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SULAIKA USMAN, D/O HAMZA, KOTTILINGAL VEEDU, NETHIRIMANGALAM,PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1900 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a cheque for Rs.48 lakhs, challenges the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi in C.M.P. No. 4204 of 2007, wherein the delay in filing the proposed complaint has been condoned. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:- In C.M.P. No. 4204 of 2007 except reiterating the averments in the complaint, there is not even a prayer to condone the delay and even the period of delay has not been mentioned either in the complaint or in the above petition. Whatever may be the extent of delay, it was obligatory to explain every day's delay. The learned Magistrate went wrong in condoning the delay as per the impugned order. CRL.R.P. NO. 1900/2008 : 2: 3. I am afraid that I cannot accept the above contentions. It is true that the exact period of delay has not been mentioned in the complaint as well as in the petition filed as C.M.P. No. 4204 of 2007. But then, going by the averments in the complaint, the statutory notice was received by the revision petitioner/accused on 03.09.2007 and the complaint ought to have been filed on 18.10.2007. But the complaint was actually filed on 23.10.2007. The statement in paragraph 8 that the complaint should not have been filed on 18.10.2007 is correct in view of the other allegations in the complaint. After reckoning the 15 days' period for payment from 03.09.2007, one month is to be added while computing the limitation, in which case the actual delay was only 5 days in filing the complaint. The explanation offered in paragraph 8 of the complaint is that the complainant who is abroad had entrusted his wife who is in Kerala to conduct the case and she was laid up. After the decision of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Katiji (1987 SC 1353), the courts have to take a liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay and the strict requirement insisted by the CRL.R.P. NO. 1900/2008 : 3: Apex Court earlier that every day's delay has to be explained, has been given a go bye. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention that the court below erred in condoning the delay of 5 days. The petitioner/accused will be entitled to raise all the defences available to him in law during the further progression of the complaint. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1900/2008 : 4: