IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1124 of 2001()
1. M.D. JOSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
===========
Crl.R.P. No.1124 of 2001
===============================
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008.
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. Order under challenge is dated 4.7.2001 in
C.C.No.175/2000 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva.
Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Sections 204(4) and
256 Cr.P.C. When the revision petition came up for hearing on
admission, this Court by order dated 1.10.2001 observed that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is not an order coming under
Section 256 of Cr.P.C. The order squarely fell under Section 204(4)
of Cr.P.C. and hence revision petition is maintainable. Therefore,
maintainability aspect of the revision petition is not required to be
considered at this state.
3. Revision petitioner filed a complaint against the accused
for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Case was taken on file on 24.3.2000 as
C.C.No.175/2000. Summons was ordered to the accused for his
appearance on 5.8.2000. No process was paid and hence case was
adjourned to 14.12.2000. On that day, revision petitioner and
counsel were absent and there was no representation. Hence the
Crl.R.P. No.1124 of 2001 2
case was posted on 4.7.2001. On that day also process was not
paid and revision petitioner was absent. An application was filed for
his absence. Learned Magistrate observed that there was no
explanation for his non-representation on 14.12.2000 and passed
the impugned order.
4. If there was no representation on 14.12.2000, the
learned Magistrate ought to have disposed of the case that day.
Instead, learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 4.7.2001 on which
day the revision petitioner though was absent, there was
representation and a request to excuse his absence on that day.
Learned Magistrate penalised revision petitioner for his absence on
14.12.2000 which in my view, cannot be justified. As such the order
under challenge is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly, revision petition is allowed, the order under
challenge is set aside and the case is remanded to the court below
for disposal in accordance with law and procedure. Revision
petitioner shall be given an opportunity to take necessary steps for
issue of summons to the accused. Revision petitioner shall appear in
the court below on 28.11.2008.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
bkn/-