IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1125 of 2001(B) ------------------------------ CC.241/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- C.A. GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.A.ANTONY, RETIRED ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBALAM PO., PAMBADU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================== Crl.R.P. No.1125 of 2001 =============================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008. O R D E R Revision petitioner and counsel remained absent. There was no representation. I heard learned public prosecutor. 2. Revision petitioner filed a complaint against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint was taken on file and the case was posted on 21.7.2001. That day, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. Legality and correctness of that order is under challenge. 3. I went through the copy of order sheet of the court below and found that after the complaint was taken on file, it came for hearing for the first time on 21.7.2001 on which day revision petitioner was absent. But he was represented and there was request to excuse his absence which learned Magistrate allowed. But complaint was dismissed as no process fee had been paid so far. Crl.R.P. No.1125 of 2001 2 4. It is stated by revision petitioner that there was no willful laches on his part. According to him, he was able to identify the police station through which process had to be issued, only on 21.7.2001. 5. At any rate, there is no reason to think that there was willful failure on the part of revision petitioner in taking necessary steps. Learned Magistrate could have granted revision petitioner one more opportunity to take necessary steps. In the circumstance, I am inclined to set aside the order under challenge. Resultantly, revision petition is allowed, the order under challenge is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below for disposal as provided under law. Revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to take necessary steps. He shall appear in the court below on 28.11.2008. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. bkn/-