IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1476 of 2011 ------------------------------------ CRA.628/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.14/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: M.V.ANAND, AGED 31, S/O.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, ISWARYA HOUSE, SNDP ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY, (CLOCK NO.505050 EMPLOYEE IN APPOLO TYRES). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. HARIS, S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, PALLIMUTTATH, MUPPATHADOM KARA, KADUNGALOR VILLAGE-683 110. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY P.P., HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY ADV. SMT.M.M.JASMIN FOR R1 SRI.SHIRAS ALIYAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.Satheesachandran, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1476 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused against the dismissal of the appeal preferred by him challenging the conviction rendered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short the N.I. Act. The appeal was preferred with a petition to condone the delay of 47 days. When the delay petition was posted for enquiry, there was no representation for the petitioner/appellant, which resulted in its dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was also rejected as time barred. The orders thereof are assailed in this revision. 2. Notice given, the first respondent/complainant has entered appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that non representation when the delay petition was posted for enquiry occurred on account of the mistake in noting the posting date by the Advocate Clerk. There was no wilful default or laches on the part of the petitioner/appellant or his counsel in prosecuting the delay petition and also the appeal is the further submission of the counsel. 3. Though submissions made as aforesaid are challenged as not true by the learned counsel for the fist respondent, taking note that the appeal was preferred against the conviction and the delay CRRP 1476/2011 2 involved was only a period of 47 days, I find such delay can be condoned on terms. There is no need to direct the court below to have a further enquiry on the delay, as it would only prolong the litigation further. So much so, the delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned subject to the payment of a sum of `.750/- as cost to the complainant. Such cost shall be paid within a period of ten days from the date of this order and an acknowledgment evidencing such payment obtained from the counsel for the first respondent, who appears before this Court, to whom such cost has to be paid, shall be produced before the court below within a period of three weeks from today. In case such acknowledgment is not produced and cost is not paid, it shall be taken into account for passing appropriate orders in imposing cost at the time of disposal of the appeal. From the submissions made by counsel on both sides, I find that the petitioner/accused has got a case for entertaining his appeal and its disposal on merits. Setting aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal, learned Sessions Judge is directed to take back the appeal, treating it as admitted on file, and dispose it on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 05.09.2011. Revision is disposed of. (S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge) tkv