IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1695 of 2010() ------------------------------ ST.1172/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------ M.R.MADHU, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, NILAPPANA VEEDU, PALA. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.K.SHYMON, MALIYIL (KOSAKKAL), ARPOOKKARA EAST.P.O, ARPOOKKARA. BY ADV.SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1695 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. O R D E R By an order dated 19.2.2007 u/s.204(4) of Cr.P.C., the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Pala, dismissed the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner alleging offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that he failed to take steps to sent the process to the accused. Hence this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel submitted that, as per the procedure and practice adopted in that court, unless the stamp cover produced along with the complaint, cognizance will not be taken and the case will not be numbered. It is submitted that on 23.8.2005 itself, ie., the date of filing the complaint, the complainant has produced the stamp cover along with the complaint and therefore the observation made by the learned Magistrate in the order is not correct. 3. Going by the averments contained in the memorandum of Crl. R.P.No.1695 of 2010 2 appeal, it appears that the cheque in question cover an amount of Rs.35,000/- and the cognizance was taken upon the complaint during the year 2005. Though the revision petitioner has submitted that the complainant has produced the stamp cover on 23.8.2005, there is no material or evidence to come into a conclusion that the complainant has taken steps to serve notice or summons on the accused. 4. However, as indicated above it can be seen that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.35,000/- and the court has already taken cognizance upon the complaint filed by the revision petitioner and therefore I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit, without entering into an enquiry as to whether the complainant has filed or produced the stamp cover etc. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 19.2.2007 in S.T.1172/2005 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Pala. The revision petitioner is Crl. R.P.No.1695 of 2010 3 directed to appear before the court below on 13.7.2010, on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file ; provided, on the date of appearance of the complainant, he produces the stamp cover for sending the summons to the accused. On satisfaction of the Magistrate, the complainant/ revision petitioner is complied with the above direction that, the learned Magistrate is further directed to proceed further in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the complaint on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/