IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1573 of 2010() ------------------------------ ST.3342/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAN.C.H., S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 39 YEARS, CHATHOTHU VEEDU, CHORODU P.O., NELLIYAKURA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.N.DAYANANDAN, S/O.SARVANAPPA, OIL MERCHANT, M.S.G.ROAD, TIPTOOR, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN-572 201. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1573 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, who is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his complaint. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, through out the entire proceedings of the court below, as evidenced by the certified copy of the extract of the proceedings in S.T.No.3342/2006, which made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant was present or represented through his counsel and it is the further case of the learned counsel that, the clerk attached to the office of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial court, committed a mistake in noting down the exact date on 19.12.2009. According to the counsel when the case was adjourned on 19.12.2009 to 19.2.2010, the clerk mistakenly Crl. R.P.No.1573 of 2010 2 noted the date as 19.3.2010, instead of 19.2.2010. From the averments contained in the revision petition, it appears that the court has taken cognizance after recording its satisfaction that there are materials to proceed upon the complaint, wherein the cheque amount involved allegedly for Rs.40,000/-. 3. It is disclosed from the proceedings of the court that, the complainant has already taken steps as directed by the court below, however there is no decision on merit. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter and to have a decision on merit, but subject to terms. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of directing the learned Magistrate of JFCM Court, Vadakara to restore the case S.T.No.3342/06 on condition that, the revision petitioner/ complainant depositing a sum of Rs.500/- in the court below. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/complainant is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara, on 21.6.2010, on which date, the learned Magistrate is directed Crl. R.P.No.1573 of 2010 3 to restore the case on file on his satisfaction that, the revision petitioner deposits the amount above mentioned and to proceed with the same in accordance with the procedure and dispose it of on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/