IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1124 of 2001 ------------------------------ CC.175/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- M.D.JOSE, DIRECTOR, EDDY AUTOMOBILES (INDIA) LTD., EDDYPURAM, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER I.A.BAHULEYAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =========== Crl.R.P. No.1124 of 2001 =============================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008. O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. Order under challenge is dated 4.7.2001 in C.C.No.175/2000 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Sections 204(4) and 256 Cr.P.C. When the revision petition came up for hearing on admission, this Court by order dated 1.10.2001 observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not an order coming under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. The order squarely fell under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. and hence revision petition is maintainable. Therefore, maintainability aspect of the revision petition is not required to be considered at this state. 3. Revision petitioner filed a complaint against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Case was taken on file on 24.3.2000 as C.C.No.175/2000. Summons was ordered to the accused for his appearance on 5.8.2000. No process was paid and hence case was adjourned to 14.12.2000. On that day, revision petitioner and counsel were absent and there was no representation. Hence the Crl.R.P. No.1124 of 2001 2 case was posted on 4.7.2001. On that day also process was not paid and revision petitioner was absent. An application was filed for his absence. Learned Magistrate observed that there was no explanation for his non-representation on 14.12.2000 and passed the impugned order. 4. If there was no representation on 14.12.2000, the learned Magistrate ought to have disposed of the case that day. Instead, learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 4.7.2001 on which day the revision petitioner though was absent, there was representation and a request to excuse his absence on that day. Learned Magistrate penalised revision petitioner for his absence on 14.12.2000 which in my view, cannot be justified. As such the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, revision petition is allowed, the order under challenge is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below for disposal in accordance with law and procedure. Revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to take necessary steps for issue of summons to the accused. Revision petitioner shall appear in the court below on 28.11.2008. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. bkn/-