IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4111 of 2007() ------------------------------ CMP.4714/2006 AND CMP NO.4715/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- SHIBA VARGHESE, W/O.XAVIER, KUNDUKULAM HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM VIA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.R.MURALI MANOHAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.H.HAMSA, VARIYANGATTIL HOUSE, NHAMANENGADU P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI KAMAPPU FOR R1 SRI.A.K.CHINNAN FOR R2 SMT.SUSAL A. CHINNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.4111 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of dismissal of a private complaint (C.M.P.No.4714 of 2006) for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”), consequent to the dismissal of a petition to condone delay in filing that complaint (C.M.P.No.4715 of 2006). It is stated in the impugned order on C.M.P.No.4715 of 2006 that petitioner/complainant had no representation in the court below inspite of direction to appear on the relevant day and hence petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner has an excuse that posting date was wrongly noted in the diary. 2. Learned counsel for respondents contended that court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or petition to condone delay since the only allegation made to confer jurisdiction on the court below was that notice was issued at a place coming within the territorial limits of that court. According to learned counsel, that by itself cannot confer jurisdiction on the court below to entertain the complaint. Learned counsel also submitted that petitions were posted more than half a dozen times for necessary steps but petitioner did not turn up. 2 3. I am not inclined to think that non-appearance of petitioner or counsel in the court below on the relevant day was wilful, for, petitioner would not stand to gain normally by not appearing in court when petitioner herself filed the complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore considering the facts of the case I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the petitions. If respondents have a contention that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, necessarily court below will consider that contention also. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to court below for consideration and disposal. It is made clear that court below shall also consider whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. Parties shall appear in the court below on 15.7.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks