IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3014 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.267/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW M.KATTIMATTOM, KATTIMATTOM VEETTIL, MADAKKATHARA P.O., KAPPU KARA, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.VAIDYANATHA IYER, SILVER HILL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAJU, S/O.KUMARAN, CHIRATTOLICKAL VEEDU, PANNIMATTOM KARA OF THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.T.J.MICHAEL FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3014 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1 st day of March, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner, who was the accused in S.T.No.267 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha challenges the order dated 23.6.2009 in C.M.P.No.1927/2009 as per which the learned Magistrate condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the complaint. The case is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, involving a cheque for Rs.50,000/-. The complainant is one Vaidyanatha Iyer, aged 85 years, who filed the complaint through his Power of Attorney holder on the strength of a Power of Attorney deed dated 2.4.2009. The reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the delay petition was that he was advanced in age and suffering from cough and other ailments. 2. The application for condoning the delay was opposed by the revision petitioner/accused. The court below, as per impugned order, condoned the delay by putting the complainant on terms of Rs.1,000/- as cost payable to the accused. It is the Crl.R.P. No.3014 of 2009 2 said order which is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:- The court below has passed the impugned order without arriving at the requisite satisfaction that the complainant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the complaint within the prescribed period. Since the complaint was filed through the Power of Attorney holder, the advanced age of the complainant or ailments suffered by the complainant were irrelevant. The court below has only concluded by saying that the delay occurred could be condoned on payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost to the accused. It has not recorded any finding as to the sufficient cause put forward by the complainant. 5. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. It is true that there is no case or finding to the effect that the complainant was prevented by sufficient cause. But the learned Magistrate has held that the complainant was not guilty of wilful latches so as to dismiss the petition to condone the delay. The said finding is in accord with the Crl.R.P. No.3014 of 2009 3 decision Collector, Land Acquisiton, Anandnag and another v. Mst.Kitiji and others (AIR 1987 SC 1353). Since the complainant was not guilty of gross negligence, the delay was liable to be condoned by putting the complainant on terms. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has exercised the discretion arbitrarily or unguidedly. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the court below so as to warrant any interference by this Court sitting in revision. This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 1 st day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj