IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 219 of 2008() ----------------------------- ST.1139/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO.(P) LTD. REG. OFFICE AT SREE GOKULAM TOWERS, 66-ARCOT ROAD KADAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600024, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.M. GOPALAN, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHAJI KUMAR K BUSINESS MANAGER, SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD., FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNILKUMAR S., S/O. THANKAPPAN UTHARA MANGALYA SAHAI, CAPITAL TOWER STATUTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 219 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. acquitting the accused for non- appearance of the complainant. It is seen that the complainant had not taken the necessary steps for issue of process also. 2. The Registry has raised an objection about the maintainability of the revision petition. This Crl.R.P. was numbered and arguments were heard on maintainability. It is trite that an order of acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. must be challenged in a properly instituted appeal against acquittal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case the dismissal must be held to be one under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. and not under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. 3. The order impugned clearly shows that it is an order passed under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. The narration in the impugned order further shows that the complainant was absent Crl.R.P.No. 219 of 2008 2 on the date when the impugned order was passed. I am not in these circumstances persuaded to agree that the impugned order, which specifically declares that it is one passed under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. must be reckoned as one passed under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. and this revision petition entertained. 4. This revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable, as the impugned order is one passed and declared to be one passed under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Needless to say, the petitioner's right to challenge the impugned order by a properly instituted appeal subject to the law of limitation shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this revision petition. The impugned order shall be returned to the counsel for the petitioner forthwith. (R. BASANT) Judge tm