IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2022 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.3137/2003 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- SURESH BABU S/O.ELIAS, AGED 41 YEARS KOCHUPARAMBIL MANNTTUR, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 AND STATE: --------------- 1. GEORGE MATHEW MANAGING DIRECTOR SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES & SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD VALLAMATOOM BUILDINGS NEAR COCHIN SHIPYARD, ERNAKULAM 2. SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES & SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD VALLAMATTOM BUILDINGS NEAR COCHIN SHIPYARD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTIOR 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2022 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the complaint is dismissed under Sec.204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.3. 2. Petitioner preferred a private complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for alleged dishonour of a cheque for Rs.15000/-. Complaint was dismissed on 10-02-09 under Sec.204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted under Sec.256(1) of that Code for failure of petitioner to take steps to issue process to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the impugned order states that accused is acquitted under Sec.256(1) Cr.PC that provision has no application since respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not appeared in court. Hence, the impugned order is one dismissing the complaint under Sec.204(4) of the Code which is revisable under Sec.397 and 401 of the Code. 3. Learned counsel submits that necessary steps were taken on 10-12-2008 and that was not taken note by the court below. Presently I am not going into the question whether steps were actually taken on that day. I do not find reason to think that absence of Crl.R.P.No.2022 of 2009 2 petitioner on 10-02-09 or failure to take steps was willful. Hence I am inclined to give an opportunity to prosecute the complaint by taking necessary steps. Resultantly this revision is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for disposal in accordance with law after giving petitioner an opportunity to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the court on 25/08/09. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/