1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.09.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Criminal Revision Case (MD).No.426 of 2009 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009 Kulasekaran ...Petitioner -Vs- Mohan ...Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed to set aside the order passed in CMP No.3987 of 2009 in C.C.No.782 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli dated 16.07.2009 in so far as the objectionable portion are concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.R.Sundar O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Challenging the order dated 16.07.2009, in Crl.M.P.No.3987 of 2009 in C.C.No.782 of 2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli, this revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner. 3. It is not in dispute that the case was taken on file on the basis of a complaint given by the respondent/complainant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the petitioner herein was called absent and there was no petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., it seems Non Bailable Warrant was issued by the Court below and the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., to recall the above said warrant. While considering the same, the Court below passed a conditional order which is impugned in the revision petition. As per the order, as a condition precedent, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- (5% of the amount) within a period of one month from the date of that order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the cheque amount involved in this case is Rs.4,00,000/- and 5% of it could have been computed only at Rs.20,000/- and not Rs.40,000/-. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Rs.40,000/- was computed by adding the interest, for which there is no explanation and even if interest is added to 5% of the principal and interest amount would not be a round figure of Rs.8,00,000/- and therefore, it is an error apparent in calculating 5% at Rs.40,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, to meet the ends of justice, I find it reasonable to modify the order. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (5% of the amount) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the conditional order is not complied with, the revision petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court and the respondent will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. While passing the order, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that since the matter is pending for a long time, there may be a direction to the Court below, to dispose of the C.C.No.782 of 2003 on merits, within a time frame. There is no tenable objection on the side of the petitioner/accused. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.782 of 2003, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The criminal Revision Case is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli. +1cc to M/s.C.K.M.Apaji, Advocate, SR.No.37513 +1cc to Mr.R.Sundar, Advocate, SR.No.37620 GH/08.10.2010/2P/5C Criminal Revision Case (MD).No.426 of 2009 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009 24.09.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/