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. 81 of 2000(Y) ----------------------------- CC.688/1998 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(COMPLAINANT): ------------------------------------------ C.K.GOPALAN, SREEKRISHNAVILASOM, ANAYADI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8: --------------------------------------- 1. KUNNATHOOR TALUK UNION MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED No.Q-1187 PERUVAZHI P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. AJITHKUMAR, PRESIDENT, KUNNATHUR TALUK MOTOR UNION TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KUNNATHOOR. 3. M.J.MAYADAS, NADAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL THOTTUMUKHAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. G.SIVANKUTTY, THIRUMANGALATHU KIZHAKKETHIL, ANAYADI, SOORANAD NORTH. 5. RAJAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, ELAVINAL VEEDU, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 6. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR ADV. SRI.THOMAS KOSHY SRI.RAKESH S.PILLAI SMT.BINDU BABY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP No.227/2000, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.Nos.81 & 227 of 2000 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has preferred these two revision petitions against the common order passed by the trial court on the two applications filed by two of the accused(accused Nos.1 and 5) seeking their discharge. The learned Magistrate while allowing the two applications, discharged the other three accused also. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record, I have no hesitation to hold that the court below had committed serious illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order. The Apex Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (7) SCC 338) has held that the trial court cannot recall the process issued in purported exercise of any inherent power after issuing process to the accused. Therefore the impugned order is Crl.R.P.Nos.81 & 227/2000 2 set aside. The court below is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Criminal revision petitions are allowed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs