IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3613 of 2010() ------------------------- CRRP.18/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA CMP.3032/2008 IN STC.1484/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- M.T. CHANDRAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KANTHASWAMI, AMBALAKKANDI VEEDU, VARADHUR P.O., SULTAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2. SMT. VANAJA SCARIA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. SCARIA, THOPPUVEETTIL VEEDU, PAYYAMPALLY AMSOM, VEMOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 645. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3613 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.1484/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady, being tried for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner filed C.M.P.3032/2008 for re-opening the evidence so as to cross examine the complainant. By Annexure-A order the petition was allowed on cost of Rs.7,000/-. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions court, Wayanad in Crl.R.P.18/2008. By Annexure-B order the revision was dismissed. It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Crmc 3613/10 2 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned Senior counsel is that when the revision was entertained by the learned Sessions Judge, it could only be disposed on merit and not on the ground that revision petitioner is absent or that there was no representation for the petitioner. It is argued that when the petitioner has taken notice, though it could not be served, the learned Senior counsel argued that when illegality or irregularity in the order is brought to the notice of the court, court is bound to consider whether the order is illegal and if so, whether it is to be interfered or not. Reliance was placed in the decision reported in Nisha Sharma and others v. Vinad Kumar Sharma (1990 Crl.L.J NOC 57). Crmc 3613/10 3 4. The revision was filed challenging Annexure-A order which was passed in an application filed by the petitioner/accused to re-open the evidence. Learned Magistrate by Annexure-A order allowed that application on payment of cost. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the cost also, as his prayer for re-opening the evidence was allowed. That order is sought to be modified or set aside by filing Crl.A.18/2008. Learned Sessions Judge could not have modified that order, without serving notice on the first respondent. When Annexure-B impugned order shows that revision petitioner did not take steps, even though revision was posted for taking steps so as to serve notice on the respondents on several occasions. It is in such circumstances, on the failure of the petitioner to take steps, Crmc 3613/10 4 learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. True, a revision ordinarily shall not be dismissed for default and revisional court has to examine the order and find whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order. But when the said order cannot be altered without notice to the opposite party and in spite of the direction, revision petitioner did not take steps, I cannot agree with the submission that the revisional court is not competent to dismiss the revision without entering it on merits. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-B order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Crmc 3613/10 5 uj.