IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1052 of 2011() ---------------------------- CC.490/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOCHI ...................................... REVISION PETITIONER : ------------------------------------ KURIAKOSE P. ABRAHAM, SUNI SYSTEMS, M.G.ROAD, NEAR PARTHAS, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT PANNIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. P.K.SATHEESAN, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1052 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2011 in C.C.No.490/2010 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi by which the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.15,000/- and originally the complaint was preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and on 12.11.2009 cognizance was taken upon the said complaint and thus instituted S.T.No.3376/2009 in the said court and subsequently the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, without any proper intimation or information either to the complainant or his counsel. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned Crl.R.P.No.1052 of 2011 2 order was resulted, out of the failure on the part of the courts below in intimating the fact of transfer of the case, either to the party concerned or his counsel. 4. From the submission of the learned counsel and from the impugned order and other materials produced before this court it can be seen that originally the case was filed and taken as S.T.No.3376/2009 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel, if no cover furnishing the address of the accused was not produced, no cognizance would have been taken. But in the impugned order it appears that the petitioner as well as the counsel were absent continuously and no step was taken to serve process on the accused. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that this Court need not go into those controversies and the correctness of the proceedings adopted by the courts below while transferring the case, but the revision petition can be disposed of granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the matter on Crl.R.P.No.1052 of 2011 3 merit. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 1.3.2011 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi in CC No.419 of 2010 and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file 23.6.2011 on which date, accordingly the revision petitioner/complainant is directed to appear before the trial court and the complainant/petitioner is further directed to take steps to serve process on the accused in terms or direction which will be issued by the trial court. The learned Magistrate is further directed to dispose of the case on merit, in accordance with the procedure and law. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/