IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2555 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.1668/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-IV, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- M/S. BELL LEASING & HIRE PURCHASE LTD DOOR NO.40/9715, IST FLOOR,BHAGEERTHA SANTHWANA CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18,REPRESENTED BY ITS ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYAPRAKASH N. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------- 1. JOSHI K.P S/O.PADMANABHAN, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE AROOR PO, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2555 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing the complaint under Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against respondent No.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 26.5.2009 learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi dismissed the complaint since petitioner was absent, there was no representation and steps were not taken. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no wilful failure on the part of petitioner in appearing in that court. According to the petitioner, complaint was filed and taken on file by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and then case was suo motu transferred to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kochi but without specifying the court to which it was transferred. In the meantime it was called in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi and dismissed. It is seen from the copy of proceedings paper produced by the petitioner that the case was taken up on 15.9.2008, 28.1.2009 and then on 26.5.2009 and on all those days petitioner was absent and there was no representation. However I am not inclined to think Crl.R.P.2555/2009 2 that there was wilful default on the part of petitioner in appearing in the court. Hence I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to proceed with the complaint. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below to proceed with the complaint as provided under law after giving petitioner an opportunity to take steps if any. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 9.9.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks