Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi … vs K.Anilkumar on 4 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 338 of 2010()


1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK TAXI DRIVERS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.ANILKUMAR,PULIVILA PUTHENVEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.SAJEEV

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :04/02/2010

 O R D E R
                         P. BHAVADASAN, J.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     Crl.M.C. No. 338 of 2010
             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010.

                                   ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 374(2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have order

dated 11.8.2009 in Crl.R.P. No.81 of 2007 passed by the

Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram quashed and for a

direction to receive the complaint filed by the petitioner

on file.

2. Petitioner had filed a complaint before the

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II,

Thiruvananthapuram alleging offences punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case

of the petitioner is that the accused had owed an amount

of Rs.21,826/- to him. For the discharge of the debt a

cheque had been issued to him by the accused. On

presentation of the cheque, it bounced, and he points out

that notice was issued to the accused. The case of the

petitioner is that he did not get the acknowledgment

Crl.M.C.338/2010. 2

back and therefore he waited. He would further say that

since he had not received the acknowledgment, he sent a

letter to the postal authorities enquiring about the

acknowledgment card. Therefore, when he finally received

the reply from the postal authorities, he laid the complaint.

He thus sought to explain the delay of 651 days in filing the

complaint.

3. The trial court was not inclined to accept the

case put forward by the petitioner for condonation of delay.

It found that the claims made by the petitioner were

unsubstantiated and dismissed the complaint.

4. Petitioner took up the matter in revision before

the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl.R.P. 81 of

2007. The learned Sessions Judge by a well considered

order and after considering all the aspects and the

contentions put forward by the petitioner came to the

conclusion that there is no substance in what the petitioner

claims and there was no bonafides also. Holding so, the

revision petition was dismissed. The said order is assailed in

this petition.

Crl.M.C.338/2010. 3

5. On going through the orders of the courts

below, it is seen that the courts below have considered all

the aspects and the various circumstances, which the

petitioner pointed out for condonation of delay. Those are

concurrent findings of fact and the case put forward by the

petitioner cannot be accepted for reasons stated in the

orders. In fact the Sessions Court considered the matter in

considerable detail and had adverted to all the aspects put

forward by the petitioner for condonation of delay and found

that the claim made is not justifiable and not entertainable.

There is no jurisdictional error or impropriety in

the order passed either by the trial court or by the Sessions

Court. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order

passed in the revision. This petition is without merits and it

is accordingly dismissed.

P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE

sb.