IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2573 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CC.1335/2009 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E O), ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- SANJAY, SEEM'S CRAFTS, NEAR S.H. COLLEGE, THEVARA P.O., KOCHI-682 013. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT/ACCUSED/STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. LIJO JOSEPH, HOUSE NO.1626, WARD NO.26, PADICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SAF ROAD, THEVARA P.O., KOCHI-682 013. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.T.R. RAJESH. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2573 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 27/08/2011 IN C.C. NO.1335/2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2573 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2011 ORDER The revision is against the dismissal of a complaint for nontaking of steps to comply with the order of the court for issuing nonbailable warrant against the accused prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act). After accepting the summons issued by the court, the accused did not enter appearance and thereupon the magistrate ordered nonbailable warrant against him directing the petitioner/ complainant to take steps thereof. Such steps, not being taken despite opportunity provided more than once, the complaint was dismissed. That order is challenged in this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant submitted that the nontaking of the steps was not on account of the default on the part of he complainant, but, due to a mistake by the counsel in taking note of the posting dates correctly. Counsel has produced before me a copy of the proceedings sheet over the complaint, which would indicate that two postings were given for taking steps as directed and on both occasions complainant remained absent. There was no representation for him on the second posting date, which was Crl. R.P No.2573 OF 2011 2 three dates after the previous posting. Submission made by the counsel that mistake in recording the postings had resulted in dismissal of the complaint, prima facie is no excuse for nontaking of steps as directed by the court. However, taking into account that the dismissal of the complaint would cause serious prejudice to the complainant, I find that one more opportunity can be extended to him to take steps as directed by the court below to secure the presence of the accused for trial. The impugned order is set aside directing the magistrate to take back the complaint on file and provide one more opportunity to the complainant to take steps as directed. 3. Petitioner/ complainant is directed to appear before the magistrate on 14-12-2011. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to judge