IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 147 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 777/04 IN CMP.1728/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED ----------------------------- CHINNU, W/O. P.M.KRISHNA DAS, PARTNER, M/S. GAYATHRI CHEMICALS, MANIKUDANILAYAM, CHERAYA P.O., KONGAD VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. M/S. BOMBAY PIGMENTS & ALLIED PRODUCTS, PALATHINKAL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.KUMAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.1.08 , THE COURT ON 23/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 147 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A4 order under which the learned Magistrate has refused to drop the proceedings against the petitioner in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The decision in K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala [1992 (1) KLT 1] has been overruled and the decision in Adalath Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal [AIR 2004 SC 4674] is none authority for the proposition that the Magistrate having issued summons has no jurisdictional competence to review that order and drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate is, therefore, justified in not dropping the proceedings. 2. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated as early as in 2004. The petitioner has already entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner Crl.R.P.No.147/08 : 2 : must now take part in the trial or in the alternative claim claiming of proceedings against her invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This revision petition is, in any view of the matter, not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 70 year old woman and is unable to appear personally before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner can participate in the trial after applying for exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. She can appear through her counsel and participate in the proceedings. I find no reason to assume such an application shall not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 4. With the above observations, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks