IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2998 of 2007() ------------------------------------------- CMP.425/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD., MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYAN THANKAPPAN. BY ADV. SMT.BEENA JOHN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHAHEENA SAJEER, THAMARAPARAMPIL HOUSE, MUDICAL P.O., PONJASSERRY, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. R2 BY ADV. MR.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM, MR.V.M.SAJAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2998 of 2007. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.425/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner filed the above complaint against the 2nd respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In filing the complaint, there was a delay of 2 days. When the complaint was posted for evidence there was no representation and no evidence was adduced to condone the delay. In the above circumstance, the petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. 2. The delay was stated to be due to the misplacement of the file and the clerk was on leave due to illness. How long the file was misplaced and when the clerk was on leave and when did the clerk was returned for duty, are not at all mentioned. Crl.R.P.No.2998 of 2007. -: 2 :- 3. In the Memorandum of Revision, it is stated that on the day when the complaint was posted before the trial court, the complainant was on official tour and the counsel was engaged in some other court. It appears that the revision petitioner was not very serious in criminal prosecution. Civil remedies are left open. Bonafides are lacking. No good reason to condone the delay. In the above circumstance, I find that there is no illegality, error or impropriety in the order impugned. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN (JUDGE) Kvs/-