IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2758 of 2007()
1. M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. RAJESH.S., RAJEESH BHAVANAM,
For Petitioner :SMT.BEENA JOHN
For Respondent :SMT.S.K.DEVI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.2758 of 2007.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the complainant in
Crl.M.P.No.3068/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner prosecuted
the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. In filing the complaint,
there is a delay of 3 days. The revision petitioner sought for
condoning the delay with a plea that the file was misplaced
by the clerk and he availed leave due to illness and prayed
for condoning the delay. On behalf of the revision
petitioner, a Legal Officer was examined as Pw1. The
learned Magistrate declined to give reliance to the evidence
of Pw1 for the reason that the clerk who misplaced the file
was not examined. The learned Magistrate had also found
that in the affidavit it was averred that the misplaced file
was traced out on 25.8.2006. In the proof affidavit it was
Crl.R.P.No.2758 of 2007.
-: 2 :-
averred that the misplaced files were traced out during the
month of May. There was contradictory statement in the
matter of misplacement of files.
2. In the above circumstances, I find that the
learned Magistrate was correct in disbelieving the
explanation offered by the revision petitioner. There is no
illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. Civil
remedies are left open to the petitioner. The revision
petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.S.GOPINATHAN
(Judge)
Kvs/-