Kerala High Court
M/S.National Finance Company vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2015
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 718 OF 2016 ()
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 160/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOCHI DATED 30-11-2015
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REV.PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------
M/S.NATIONAL FINANCE COMPANY,
KEMI COMPLEX,PERUMBAVOOR.P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683542
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BABU.B.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR
SMT.T.M.BINITHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2. GEEVAS.K.THAMPI,
S/O.THAMBI.K.K,
KOCHAKKAN HOUSE,KIZHAKKAMBALAM,VILANGU.P;.O,
NEAR KITEX COMPANY,
ERNAKULAM,PIN-683561.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI ROY THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
VSV
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
====================
Crl. R.P.No.718 of 2016
===================
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2016
O R D E R
Petitioner herein laid a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. It is stated that thereafter in the light of the decision reported in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharahstra (2014 (3) KLT 605), the case was transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam from where it was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kochi. The case stood thereafter posted before that court on 30.11.2015. On that day when the matter was taken up, the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Noting that no steps were taken even after repeated opportunities, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint invoking Section 204(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is assailed by the Crl. R.P. No.718 of 2016 -: 2 :- complainant in this revision.
2. Notice was served on the 2nd respondent, accused who has chosen to remain absent.
3. Head the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the cheque is one for Rs.1,78,000/- and that he was prosecuting the matter before all the three courts. On 30.11.2015 it so happened that the matter was entrusted with another counsel who failed to make a representation. In the light of the confusion that had arisen in the interregnum, due to the varying legal position and the transfer of the case from one court to another, the petitioner herein could not take steps.
5. Having regard to the fact that the amount involved is substantial and that the complaint was originally filed long back before the Court at Perumbavoor and the case was being transferred from one court to another which was being prosecuted by the complainant, it cannot reasonably be expected that one would remain voluntarily Crl. R.P. No.718 of 2016 -: 3 :- lethargic and invite a dismissal of the complaint. Considering these facts, I feel that the court below ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to pursue the matter. In the light of the above, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside and I do so.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kochi for fresh consideration after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein to take necessary steps for issuing notice to the accused. The revision petitioner shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kochi on 03.08.2016.
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
vsv