IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3755 of 2011() ----------------------------------- (CRRP.5/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD IN C.M.P.449/2010 IN ST 320/11 C.M.P NO.448/2010 OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - II, SULTHANBATHERY) .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.D.DINESH,S/O.DAMODARAN,AGED 55 YEARS GARIMA KOVOOR, CHEVAYOOR POST, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUKUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNHACHAN, NIRMALYAM, CHOOTHUPARA POST, MEENAGADI, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DG Crl.MC.No. 3755 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FURST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,SULTHN BATHERY. ANNEXURE II:- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN CMP.NO.449/2010 DTD 9/7/2010 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT II , SULTHAN BATHERY. ANNEXURE III:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 7/11/2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENTS. ANNEXURE IV:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 449/2010 DTD 2/4/2011 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT II,SULTHAN BATHERY. ANNEXURE V:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5/9/2011 REVISION PETITIONNO.5/2011 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3755 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December 2011 O R D E R A complaint was filed by the complainant against this petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. But there was a delay of 80 days in filing the complaint. That delay condonation petition was opposed by the accused pointing out the falsity of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the objection was not seriously considered by the court below. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge also did not appreciate the objection raised by the petitioner in its correct perspective. It is pointed out that in paragraphs 5 and 6, the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the correctness or otherwise of the statement given by the complainant is a matter to be Crl.M.C. No.3755 of 2011 -: 2 :- gone into at the time of trial. According to the learned counsel that should have been gone into by the learned Magistrate and by the learned Sessions Judge before allowing the petition. 2. Both courts have exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing the complaint. There was no unreasonable delay in filing the complaint. I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. The petitioner can raise all his contentions before the trial court. If the petitioner files an application for personal exemption, that will be considered by the learned Magistrate taking note of all circumstances and also after hearing the complainant. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt