IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2034 of 2010() --------------------------------------------- ST.1295/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,PALA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- PREMA B NAIR, W/O. N.P.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREERANGAM HOUSE, PULIYANOOR VILLAGE & POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ PAUL, PARACKAL HOUSE, ANGADY, CHANGANACHERRY PO, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2034 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 13th Day of October 2010 JUDGMENT This Crl.R.P. is preferred against the order dated 18.6.2010 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala in S.T.No.1295/2008 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 204(3) of Cr.P.C., which is a complaint preferred by the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the petitioner was effectively prosecuting the complaint. According to the learned counsel, on 25.1.2010 , the case was posted for appearance of the accused, but he was absent and applied to condone his absence through his counsel which was allowed and subsequently the case was adjourned to 12.3.2010, but on that day also the accused was absent and therefore warrant was ordered against him. It is the CRRP 2034/10 :-2-: further submission of the counsel that the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala is also functioning as a Munsiff Court and there were no sufficient staff to handle the matters and therefore even though process was paid, the same was misplaced which ultimately resulted in the order impugned. 3. However, there is no materials to show that the process was paid in time and the order was issued by the learned Magistrate as a result of the failure on the part of the staff of the court. As the cheque in question covers and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and cognizance was taken in the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit, but subject to terms. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of setting aside the order dated 18.6.2010 in S.T.Case No.1295/2008 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala on CRRP 2034/10 :-3-: condition that the revision petitioner/complainant deposits a sum of Rs.1000/- in the court below. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 15.11.2010 on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and on his satisfaction that the petitioner has deposited the amount as directed above, he shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and to dispose of the same on merit. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be deposited in the State Exchequer The Crl.Appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, kvm/- JUDGE