IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 777 of 2011() ----------------------------- ST.1502/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- K.K.SHAJAHAN, S/O.KUNJUMON, KARUPPAN VEETTIL HOUSE, THUVANOOR, KECHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ALI.C.H, S/O.HAMSA, CHATHENCHIRAYIL HOUSE, VARANDHARAPILLY, VELLUPADAM P.O., THRISSUR. PUBIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.777 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. ORDER The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI. Act is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2011 in ST No.1502/2007 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur by which the learned Magistrate dismissed his complaint under Section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there was no wilful latches or negligence on the part of the complainant or his counsel in taking steps or in appearing before the trial court. 3. As discernible from the order impugned, the cheque in question for an amount of Rs.95,000/-. It is also the fact that the court has already taken cognizance for the said offence. The learned counsel submitted that there was an omission from the part of the clerk attached to the counsel in the lower court in taking down the correct date of posting of the case which resulted in non-appearance of the complainant as well as his counsel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that there is negligence on the part of the Crl.R.P.NO.777 OF 2011 2 complainant in prosecuting the matter diligently but considering the fact the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.95,000/- and cognizance has already been taken. I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter but subject to terms. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 4.1.2011 in ST No.1502 of 2007 the court of judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur on condition the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.500/- in the trial court within a month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 18th April, 2011, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file on his satisfaction that the petitioner deposits the amount and to proceed in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose the matter on merit. The amount which will be deposited by the petitioner shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm