IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 350 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.1004/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.331/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- SUSEELA (MARUTOORKADAVU), CHIEF TELEPHONE CONTROLLER, BSNL, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. R.SUNITHA NUJUM, NOWSHAD MANZIL, ATTAKKULANGARA, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUSHPALATHA.M.K THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 350 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of February,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.331/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate VIII, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.1004/2006. But the appeal was not filed within time. Crl.M.P.2867/2006 was filed to condone the delay of one day in filing the appeal. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application as per order dated 14.11.2006 and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The order is challenged in this petition filed CRRP 350/2009 2 under section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that when the delay was only of one day, learned Sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing the application and therefore in the interest of justice, an opportunity is to be granted. 4. The order passed by Sessions Judge dismissing Cr.M.P.2867/2006 shows that petition was dismissed only on account of the failure of revision petitioner to take steps to issue notice to first respondent. Notice was sent in the revision to first respondent and still first respondent did not appear. In such circumstance, in the interest of justice, an opportunity is to be granted to the revision petitioner to have a decision in Crl.A.1004/2006 when the delay in filing the appeal was of only one day. The order CRRP 350/2009 3 dismissing Crl.M.P.2867/2006 and consequential order dismissing Crl.A.1004/2006 are set aside. Crl.M.P.2867/2006 and Crl.A.1004/2006 stand restored to file. Revision petitioner is directed to take steps to serve notice on first respondent in Crl.MP.2867/2006. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose Crl.M.P.2867/2006 immediately after service of notice on first respondent. Learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose Crl.A.1004/2006 also expeditiously. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006