IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 917 of 2001()
1. GLORY ENTERPRISES LTD.,PVT. LTD. COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.917 of 2001
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008.
ORDER
Revision petitioner and counsel remained absent. There is no
representation. Heard Public Prosecutor.
2. This revision is directed against order dated 8.2.2001 in
Crl.M.P.No.6096 of 2000. That was a complaint filed by revision petitioner
against one Smt.R.S.Girija for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as `the Act’). Complaint was
posted for recording sworn statement of the revision petitioner on 8.2.1001. That
day, revision petitioner was absent and hence the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate dismissed the complaint. It is contended in the Revision Petition that
non-appearance was not willful, revision petitioner which is a company was
represented by its then Managing Director, one Joseph, there was dispute
between the management of the company after filing of complaint resulting in
the removal of said Joseph from the post of Managing Director and that it was
not brought to the notice of company that judicial proceedings were pending in
the court below.
Complaint was filed in the court below on 24.4.2000. Thereafter,
the learned magistrate gave six postings spread over a period of about ten
months for recording sworn statement of the representative of revision
Crl.R.P.No.917/2001
2
petitioner. On 27.10.2000 and 8.12.2000 case was adjourned by notification.
On 8.2.2001 case was posted for recording sworn statement as last chance. It is
seen from the order sheet that right from the beginning up to the date of
impugned order, revision petitioner remained absent and absence was
excused. It is difficult to think that revision petitioner (company) was not aware
of the pendency of judicial proceedings in the court below filed on its behalf. I
am not persuaded to think that learned magistrate was required to give any
further posting, in spite of giving several opportunities spread over a period of
ten months. The logical conclusion was a dismissal of complaint as done by
the learned magistrate on 8.2.1001. There is no reason to interfere. Revision
Petition is therefore, dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks
Crl.R.P.No.917/2001
3
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
Crl.R.P.No.917 of 2001
ORDER
7th October, 2008