IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1590 of 2008() ---------------------------------- S.T. NO. 2071/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, S. BATHERY REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------- M/S.GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD., KIZHAKKEBAGATH COMPLEX, SULTHAN BATHERY, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI.K.N.SUNIL S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, KANADAMCHIRAYIL HOUSE, MYLAMBADI, PURAKKADI AMSOM, APPATT DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRADEEP.P., S/O.RAMAN KUTTY, RESIDING AT CHATHUKOLLY, KOPPADI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1590 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. ORDER In this revision filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.02.2008 in S.T. No. 2071 of 2007 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery acquitting the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The said case is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque for Rs.2,03,071/-. Going by the diary extract produced by the petitioner, the accused is yet to enter appearance since the process has not been issued by the Magistrate and presumably there was failure on the part of the petitioner to take steps. In such a situation, the course open to the Magistrate was to dismiss the complaint under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. It was not open to the Magistrate to acquit the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order is treated as a dismissal under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. Since the accused has not entered appearance before the Magistrate, notice to the 2nd respondent/accused is dispensed with. CRL.R.P. NO. 1590/2008 : 2: 2. There must have been some latches on the part of the petitioner in taking steps. But he certainly did not deserve dismissal of hiscomplaint. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and S.T. No. 2071 of 2007 is restored to file and the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate without any further notice on 17.06.2008 by which time he shall have taken all steps for the further progress of the case. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1590/2008 : 3: