IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1191 of 2001 ---------------------------------------- CC.184/1998 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- ANTONY.P, S/O. PETER, CHERUKUNNU, THAVAM.P.O., KANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT VALAYIL CHARUVILA VEEDU, VELLIMON, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), MR.P.SREEKUMAR, MR.B.PRABHAT KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THAYAVALAPPIL NARAYANAN, S/O. APPU, CHERUKUNNU, THAVAM.P.O., KANNUR. 2. MOTHANGA MANOHARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHERUKUNNU, THAVAM.P.O., KANNUR. 3. MONTHANGA SUDHAKARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHERUKUNNU, THAVAM.P.O., KANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.P.K.VIJAYAN, SMT.K.V.JAYALAKSHMY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 1191 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.184 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur and he challenges the order of the lower court dated August 16, 2001 dismissing the complaint for his absence. 2. The revision petitioner field a private complaint before the lower court alleging that on January 11, 1998 the accused persons trespassed into his house, threatened him, beat his younger brother and took away two fishing net worth Rs.2,000/- each and though a complaint was filed before the police, they did not take any action. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded sworn statement of the complainant and examined three other witnesses. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused persons/respondents herein. When the case was posted for hearing on August 16, 2001, the complainant was absent. Therefore, the trial court discharged the accused persons by the impugned order dated August 16, 2001. The complainant has challenged the said order in this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The counsel for the respondents remained absent. Crl.R.P. 1191/01 2 4. Before this Court the revision petitioner produced a copy of the medical certificate to show that he was laid up during that period due to severe back pain. As the respondents were absent, I am inclined to accept the medical certificate and hold that there was sufficient cause for the complainant for his non-appearance on August 16, 2001. That being so, the impugned order of the trial court has to be set aside. 5. Hence, the impugned order of the trial court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. The case was of the year 1998. Therefore, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The revision petition is allowed as found above. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn Crl.R.P. 1191/01 3 P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Crl.R.P. No. 1191 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O R D E R 22nd day of October, 2009