IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2508 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.1576/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- P.K.THOMAS, PADIYIARA HOUSE EANTHAYAR PO, MUNDAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED : --------------- JINSHU C.M., CHENTHAPPARAYIL HOUSE' 88 BHAGUM, MUKKULAM EAST PO, PERUVANTHANAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2508 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 14.10.2008 and ordered summons to the respondent and posted the case on 5.1.2009. Respondent did not appear that day, though summons was served. Hence bailable warrant was ordered and the case was posted on 4.4.2009. That day there was no sitting and the case was adjourned by notification to 22.5.2009. On that day and again on 29.5.2009 petitioner was absent and there was no representation on behalf of petitioner. Since no process was paid learned magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submits that posting date was mistakenly noted as 22.6.2009 instead of 22.5.2009 which resulted in the absence of petitioner and counsel on 22.5.2009 and 29.5.2009. Crl.R.P.No.2508/2009 2 3. On hearing learned counsel I am satisfied that absence of petitioner and counsel on 22.5.2009 and 29.5.2009 was not wilful. Hence I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to proceed with the complaint. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below to proceed with the complaint as provided under law after giving petitioner an opportunity to take steps if any. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 28.8.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks