IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2378 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.1283/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .............................................................. PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------- K.MOHANAN, MANAGER, AYURSIDHA PHARMACEUTICALS, VARANTHARAPILLY DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N. MANOJ RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------- 1. REJI, ASWAS PHARMA, OPP. TO THE SOUTH GATE OF ST.MICHAELS COLLEGE, MAYITHARA POST, CHERTHALA, PIN-688 539, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2378 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th day of September, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act since he is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2010 in C.C.No.1283 of 2009 of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda by which his complaint is dismissed under section 204 (4) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though earnest steps were taken, prior to the date of the order to take steps under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., the process could not be served on the accused even though attempt was made to serve the process through police. The learned counsel further submitted that though steps under sections 82 and 83 were ordered on 6.1.2010 and the case was adjourned to 14.1.2010, due to a wrong endorsement made by the Clerk of the counsel for the complainant in the court CRL.R.P.2378/10 -2- below, the counsel was under the impression that the process was already paid on 8.1.2010 and there was negligence on the part of the petitioner. 3. The cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.80,000/- and upon the complaint preferred by the petitioner, though the court has taken cognizance, there is no decision on merit and from the facts stated above it appears that the revision petitioner was prosecuting the complaint vigilantly but due to the mistake committed by the clerk of the counsel concerned, no process was paid in time. Resultantly, the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the matter on merit. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of setting aside the order dated 14.1.2010 in C.C.No.1283/2009 of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda and the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 15th October, 2010 on which date the CRL.R.P.2378/10 -3- learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and the complainant is directed to cooperate with the enquiry of the complaint and pay process as ordered on 6.1.10 on the date of appearance of the complainant as directed above and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the procedure and law and dispose of the same on merit. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. kvm/- CRL.R.P.2378/10 -4-