IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2654 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.67/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- C.K.SAMBASIVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KOYU, 40/165, RAJESDWARI STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2. SHRI.A.V.MOHANDAS, "AISWARYA", OPPOSITE PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KODUMBU POST, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2654 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of August 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with since the complaint is dismissed under section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.2 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to him, petitioner issued cheque for the sum of Rs. One Lakh for discharge of a liability. That cheque was dishonoured as account was closed and as there was no sufficient funds in the account. Notice sent to to respondent No.2 was returned as unclaimed. Complaint was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons to respondent No.2 on 30-01-2009 and posted the case on 29-06-2009. Summons could not be served and hence there was fresh order to issue summons to respondent No.2. Petitioner was directed to take steps. The case was posted on 29-06-2009. That day, there was no sitting and hence the case was posted on 08-07-2009 by notification. On 08-07-2009 petitioner was absent. No steps were taken. Hence complaint was dismissed. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no willful default on the part of petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.2654 of 2009 2 3. The order under challenge shows that on 08-07-2009 there was a request on behalf of petitioner for adjournment. That request was rejected. On going through the order under challenge and hearing learned counsel I am not inclined to think that failure to take steps was willful. Hence I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to prosecute the complaint by taking necessary steps. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad for fresh disposal after giving petitioner an opportunity to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in that court on 30-09-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/