IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1660 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- STC.1755/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- M. ABDUL RAHIMAN, PUTHIYAKELOTH, THAHIRAS, MUNNA, P.P VALAPPATTANAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. B.P. SAJEER, S/O. KHALID, PAPPARAMBETH HOUSE, KADAVU ROAD, P.O. VALAPATTANAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 1660 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this case. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the dismissal of a private complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reason being that petitioner did not take steps within the time specified. Learned Magistrate has observed that there was a direction to the petitioner to take steps within three days from 25.10.2008 but that was not complied with and instead process memo was produced only when the case was called on 3.12.2008. 3. Dismissal of the complaint is not for non-production of memo but there was no application for condonation of delay in producing the memo. In the circumstances and hearing the submission of counsel for petitioner I find that there was no wilful delay in producing the process memo. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the court below. Resultantly, Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned CRL. R.P. No.1660 of 2009 -: 2 :- order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for disposal as provided under law. Petitioner shall appear in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur on 18.6.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv