Allowed

Abraham Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/2683/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal revision allowed the revisioner to file the process fee and restored the under appeal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 before the lower court. The order dismissed the case under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. due to absence and failure to pay process fee, which the court set aside, restoring the case to the file upon confirmation by revisioner.

What did the court decide?

set aside dismissal under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. and restore case S.T. 129 of 2007 to file for payment of process fee.

Abraham Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2007 / 22ND ASHADHA 1929

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2683 of 2007() -----------------------------ST.129/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM ....................

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT

¶6

¶7

ABRAHAM MATHEW, KALATHILAYA KANJIRAPARAMBIL, KARAPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK

¶9

RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶14

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 2683 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 13**^th day of July 2007

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Revision Petitioner who is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in respect of a cheque involving Rs.85,000/- and pending before the J.F.C.M.-II (Mobile), Kottayam as S.T. 129 of 2007 was not present on 10-4-2007 to which date the case was posted for payment of process fee. On that date, r his counsel was also not present and no process fee was also paid. The case was thereupon adjourned to the next day i.e. on 11-42007 on which date also the revision petitioner as well as his counsel were absent. Thereupon the complaint was dismissed under Sec. 204 (4) Cr.P.C. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision.

¶17

The case of the revision petitioner is that the clerk of the revision petitioner's counsel appearing in the lower court had mistakenly noted the date of posting of the case as 10-5-2007 instead of 10-4-2007 and that was the reason why there happened to be no representation on 10-4-2007. The reason put forward appears to be a genuine reason and, at any rate, the Magistrate should have secured the presence of the complainant or his counsel and given him

¶18

Crl.R.P. No. 2683 of 2007 -:2:-

¶19

an opportunity to pay the process fee before dismissing the case under Sec. 204 (4) Cr.P.C. The order dated 11-04-2007 is set aside and S.T. Case No. 129 of 2007 is restored to file. It shall be called

¶20

before the Court below on 27-07-2007 before which date the revision petition shall pay process fee etc. .

¶21

This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶22

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶23

ani.

Abraham Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yerika Vs Ramachandran & Another

K.H.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Chithira Potteries and Another Vs T.v.Sunny and Another

Devarajan Vs Jose Paul

R.Balakrishnan Vs Kerala Financial Corporation and Another

Rajendra Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat and Another