IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2747 of 2008() ------------------------------ ST.505/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK DRIVERS- CO-OPERATIVE SOEICTY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SUBAIR KUNJU SRI.PREM NAVAS J.R. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUT0R, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.SETHU KUMAR, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.43/623 "KUZHANGARA VEEDU", ARYANKUZHI, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J ====================== Crl. M.A. No. of 2008 in Unnumbered Crl. R.P. of 2008 ======================= Date: ORDER This is a petition to condone the delay of ...... days in filing the revision. Since the complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate even before the appearance of the accused, notice to the ........ respondent/complainant is dispensed with. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit in support of this petition, the delay of ...... days in filing the above revision is condoned. Registry to number the revision petition today itself. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2747 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the complainant in S.T. No. 505 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VII, Thiruvananthapuram, which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a cheque for Rs.16,500/-, challenges the order dated 30.11.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C for the absence of the petitioner and also for not taking steps for issuing process to the accused. 2. There might have been some latches on the part of the revision petitioner in not taking steps promptly. But, he certainly did not deserve a dismissal of his complaint. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and C.C. No. 505 of 2006 shall stand restored to file. The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 27.08.2008 by which time he shall have taken all necessary steps for the further progress of the case. Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv