IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2583 of 2008(C) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2008 IN MP.1037/2008 IN CC.1356/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- K.C. MATHEW, S/O. CHERIAN, PROPRIETOR OF PIGEE AGENCIES, PERUMALI HOUSE, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. B. SASIDHARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. B.R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAARIKODE VASATHI, ELOOR VILLAGE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2583 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 1356 of 2008 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi, challenges the order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate on M.P. No. 1037 of 2008 condoning the delay of 61 days in preferring the complaint. 2. The learned Magistrate was inclined to condone the delay which happened at the hands of the counsel entrusted by the complainant. In fact, the counsel was hospitalised and he subsequently passed away. The revision petitioner/accused contended before the court below that the delay did not happen at the hands of the complainant's counsel and that it was a false reason put forward by the complainant. In fact, the complainant was examined and cross examined. The learned Magistrate was inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the complainant. It cannot be said that the delay was on account of any gross negligence or contumacious conduct on the part of the CRL. R.P. NO. 2583/2008 : 2: complainant so as to visit him with the consequence of a dismissal of his complaint or to mulct him with costs. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion validly exercised by the learned Magistrate. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. R.P. NO. 2583/2008 : 3: