IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1750 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ S.T.1053/08 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, ERNAKULAM ................................................ REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- NITHIN T.A., AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, DMC ROAD, EDAPPALLY NORTH, COCHIN. BY ADV. SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. A.P.SHAMOD, C/O.MOHAN, PEEDIKAPOIL HOUSE, NR.SPUP SHOOL, KANNUR-670691. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA. P.N THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. V.K. MOHANAN, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1750 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2010 in C.C.No.1053/2008 of Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Ernakulam by which learned Magistrate dismissed his complaint u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/complainant was prosecuting the complaint earnestly and by producing the order sheet of court below, the learned counsel submitted that the proceedings was prolonged as the accused did not co-operate with the inquiry and trial court constrained to issue warrant against the accused and on two occasions warrants were recalled. According to the counsel, since there was some mistake in noting down the posting date, neither the complainant nor the counsel could appear on 28.01.2010 and their absence is not willful. 3. Going by the averments contained in the revision Crl.R.P. No.1750/10 2 memorandum and the materials available, it can be seen that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.30,000/- and the trial court has already taken cognizance for offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but there is no disposal on merit. As indicated earlier, it can be seen that complainant was prosecuting the matter effectively. But he was not aware of the posting on 28/01/2010 since there was a mistake in noting down the posting date of the case. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 28/01/2010 in CC.No.1053/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate -VI, Ernakulam and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on 26.11.2010, on which date revision petitioner/complainant is directed to appear before the trial court. Learned Magistrate is further directed to dispose of the case on merit in accordance with procedure and law. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. Sou.