IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 420 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRMP.4180/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- SOMASUNDARAM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/s. KOTTARAM CHITTIES AND FINANCE PVT. LTD. HOUSE No.42/1334, POWER HOUSE ROAD, COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.RAMANKUATTY MENON, S/o. MADHAVA MENON, VIJAYA NIVAS, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ 1. M.S.JOHN, S/o. M.G.SAMUEL, MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KIZHAVALLOOR POST, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.420 of 2001 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER The complainant in prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has preferred this revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is seen observed by the learned Magistrate that the complainant was absent on the day when the case was taken up and no application had been filed to condone the absence. The learned Magistrate further observed that the complainant had been “continuously absent”. 3. Learned counsel submits that the complaint was filed on May 10, 2000 and it was adjourned to August 14, 2000 for recording the sworn statement. On that day the case was adjourned to September 16, 2000 since there was no sitting. On that day the complainant was absent and case was again adjourned to October 21, 2000. Application to condone his absence was allowed and the case was adjourned to October 23, 2000. However, due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Crl.R.P.No.420/2001 2 counsel, the posting date was taken as October 28, 2000. According to the learned counsel, the complainant happened to be absent on October 23, 2000 because of the above mistake. 4. Though the respondent has been served with notice through special messenger, he has not appeared either in person or through counsel. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has to be afforded another opportunity to prosecute his case. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The court below shall restore the complaint to file and dispose it off in accordance with law. 6. Petitioner shall appear before the court below on June 9, 2008. The criminal revision petition is allowed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs