IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1357 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.247/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ B.UNNIKRISHNAN, T.C.3/2452 KADAMPATTU VEEDU, EAST PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. A.ANILKUMAR, S/O.ADICHAN, VAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PEEMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERAL, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1357 OF 2001 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009. ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.247/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. He prosecuted the first respondent for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Though process was issued it was returned with endorsement, “correct address not known”. The revision petitioner was directed to take steps in correct address. But, it appears that he could not furnish correct address. Ultimately on 25.4.2001 further proceedings were stopped and the first respondent was discharged. Assailing the above order , this revision petition is filed. 2. Para 2 of the order impugned reads:- ''The complainant failed to appear before court on several consecutive postings and no steps taken against the accused. Hence the proceedings against the accused stopped and the accused discharged.'' According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner address furnished by the complainant was correct. But the process was returned for reasons not known and that the process issued from this court in the very same address was acknowledged by the first respondent and that since the correct address was duly furnished in the complaint, revision petitioner could not produce further correct address. However, he could not Crl.R.P.NO.1357 OF 2001 2 represent the same as he was absent in the court and the absence was because he met with an accident and sustained fracture. 3. On verification of the records it is seen that process issued from this court in the same address as in the complaint was acknowledged by the first respondent. So it is obvious that process issued from the trial court was in correct address, but returned for reasons which the revision petitioner could not explain. Since the first respondent was served in the very same address from this court, the revision petitioner could not be found fault with for not furnishing the correct address or taking steps in correct address. It is to be presumed that the address shown in the complaint is correct. In this view of the matter the order impugned is vitiated. The revision petitioner is not at fault for not furnishing the correct address and taking steps in that address. The order impugned amounts to denial of justice. That order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed the impugned order is set aside. The complaint before the lower court would stand restored to file. The lower court shall dispose the same at the earliest as per law. P.S.GOPINATHAN ,JUDGE. pm