IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2591 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.653/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD., PEROORKADA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE ---------------------------- 1. N.K.AJITH KUMAR, MUNICIPAL QUARTERS, NEAR RUBBER BOARD, COLLECTORATE, P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2591 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of August 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing the complaint under section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 11-02-2009 in S.T.No.653 of 2007 of court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class- 2, Thiruvananthapuram. Complaint was dismissed for absence of petitioner and since steps were not taken. Learned counsel contends that counsel for petitioner in the trial court had a fall, was undergoing treatment from 27-12-2008 to 20-05-2009, was advised bed rest and hence she could not represent petitioner in the court below on 11-02- 2009. A copy of medical certificate dated 20-05-2009 stating that counsel was under treatment from 27-12-2008 to 20-05-2009 is produced. On hearing counsel and going through the record I am satisfied that absence of petitioner or counsel in the court below on 11-02-2009 was not willful. Petitioner has to be given an opportunity to prosecute the complaint further by taking necessary steps. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for Crl.R.P.No.2591 of 2009 2 fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to take necessary steps. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 10-09-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/