IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2951 of 2009 ------------------------------ ST.1603/2007 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN K.K., KUTTAYIL HOUSE, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, ATHIRMPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. PRADEEPKUMAR.R., FIREMAN, FIRE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, RAM MOHAN PALACE COMPOUND, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ANEY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P. NO. 2951 OF 2009 ======================= Dated this the 6th day of April 2011 ORDER The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.1603/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ettumanoor. The complaint was filed against the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first respondent/accused appeared before the trial court and was enlarged on bail on 9/1/2008. After the commencement of trial, the accused did not appear before the trial court and he was absconding. The learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant to the accused on 23/5/2009 and the necessary process fee was remitted by the complainant on 23/7/2009 only. For that reason of delay in remitting the process fee, the complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per the impugned order on 24/7/2009. That order has been challenged by the revision petitioner/complainant before this Court by filing this revision CRRP 2951/2009 -2- petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. No appearance was made by the first respondent/accused in spite of service of notice. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the delay in remitting the process fee to issue non-bailable warrant to the accused was not intentional and the complainant was very much interested in proceeding with the case. The learned counsel further submitted that necessary process fee was already remitted before the lower court which was in the records as represented by the complainant's counsel who was present before that court on the day when the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay in taking the steps was due the mistake on the part of the Advocate clerk and the complainant may not be asked to suffer the consequences. 4. It cannot be said or even presume that a complainant would purposely fail to take steps in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act especially after the trial in the case was already commenced. Interest of justice CRRP 2951/2009 -3- warrants an opportunity to be granted to the complainant to proceed with the case. 5. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint is set aside. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 30/5/2011 and to take steps within ten days from that date. The court below to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE