IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1882 of 2009() ------------------------- CRL.R.P.86/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CMP.300/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- SAJU.P.V., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET P.O., KADATHY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KOONANICKAL HOUSE, ANCHIRI P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN FOR R1 SMT.P.P.STELLA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1882 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. ORDER In this petition, the petitioner challenges Annexure A5 order, by which his revision petition, namely, Crl.R.P.86 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, stood dismissed. 2. Petitioner initiated prosecution proceedings against the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When he filed the complaint, it was found that the complaint was out of time and there was a delay of 206 days in filing the complaint. He sought condonation of delay. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Muvattupuzha, before whom the complaint was laid held that there was no acceptable reasons for the delay and dismissed the complaint. That order was challenged in revision petition by the petitioner herein. The learned Sessions Judge, by Crl.M.C.1882/2009. 2 a well considered order has confirmed the order of the trial court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to show any error or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. Both the courts have found that the reasons given for the delay are unacceptable and there is no justification to condone the delay. It is felt that it may not be proper to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. This petition is without merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.