IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 40 of 2000 ---------------------------- CC.105/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- JACOB MATHEW, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, PUNNAKUNNAM MURI, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. P.V. GEORGE, PARIATHATTU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMUSSERI,KAVIYOOR. 2. GRACY GOERGE, PARIATHATTU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMSSERI, KAVIYOOR. 3. REENA GEORGE, PARIATHATTU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMSSERI, KAVIYOOR. 4. RAJEENA P. GEORGE, PARIATHATTU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMSSERI, KAVIYOOR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.40 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the complainant in a private complaint. The case of the complainant was that the accused had misused the cheques and blank papers handed over by him in connection with a chitty transaction and launched a prosecution against him alleging that he had committed the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. But when the complaint came up for consideration before the trial court on October 15, 1999 the complaint was dismissed due to the absence of the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel that the court below was not justified in dismissing the complaint, since it was brought to its notice that the complainant was laid up. But the learned Magistrate had noticed in the impugned order that the complainant had been absent for the last several postings also. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having Crl.R.P.No.40 OF 2000 :: 2 :: perused the materials available on record and having regard to the nature of the complaint, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order at this distance of time . The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.40 OF 2000 :: 3 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.Nos.40, 124, 876, 1056 & 1082 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4 th day of April 2008 ORDER In today's cause list, five Criminal Revision Petitions of the year 2000 have come up in the defect category. All of those cases, except one viz.Crl.R.P.1056/00, had not been posted by the Registry before the Bench after 2002. Crl.R.P.1056/00 had come up for admission on December 5, 2000 and notice before admission was ordered on that. But the above case was posted before the Bench nearly after seven years i.e., on July 24, 2007. Similarly, Crl.R.P.876/00 had come up before the Bench on September 24, 2002. Crl.M.P.7300/02 filed by the Crl.R.P.No.40 OF 2000 :: 4 :: petitioner on October 16, 2002 came up before the Bench on July 22, 2005 nearly after 5 years. Thereafter, the case is coming up before the Bench only today due to some defects like non-service of notice. In other words, these cases had been dumped in the registry presumably unattended for what reasons, it is unknown. If only these cases had been posted before the Bench, long pendency could have been avoided and matter could have been disposed of after curing the defects. This is not a rare phenomena. Though several instructions have been issued orally, nothing seems to work. Therefore, the Registrar Judicial shall place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate necessary action. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes