Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH K.R versus C.C. JOSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SURESH K.R v. C.C. JOSE - Crl Rev Pet No. 2740 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 450 (9 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2740 of 2006()

1. SURESH K.R.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. C.C.JOSE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.DIVAKARAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :09/08/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.A.Nos. 7655, 7657 & 7656 of 2006 in Crl.R.P.Nos. 2740, 2741 & 2742 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 9th day of August, 2006

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. These applications are to condone the delay of 175 days in filing the revision petitions, which in turn are directed against orders passed by the learned Magistrate in three separate prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I Act between the same parties. By the impugned orders the learned Magistrate had condoned the delay of 10 days in filing a complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act invoking the powers under the proviso to section 142 (b) of the Act. It would appear that the delay was condoned without and before giving notice to the petitioner. On coming to know that such an order has been passed against him, the petitioner has come to this court with these revision petitions. I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned even without notice to the complainant. These petitions are allowed. Delay condoned. Number the revision petitions. (R. BASANT) Judge

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.Nos. 2740, 2741 & 2742 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 9th day of August, 2006

O R D E R

These revision petitions are directed against separate orders passed by the learned Magistrate in three identical prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As per the impugned orders the delay of 10 days in filing these three prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was condoned by the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under the proviso to Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits and the impugned orders reveal that notice was not issued to the petitioner before the impugned orders were passed. The petitioner hence came to know of the impugned orders only after he entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and verified the records. The petitioner wanted to raise his objections against the ex parte adhoc decision to condone the delay in these three prosecutions. But it is the case of the petitioner that such objections were not considered and disposed of by the learned Magistrate. No written objections have been raised, it is submitted. Attempt was made to raise objections only orally, it is submitted. The counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Valsan v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 1050). The learned counsel submits that even assuming that the learned Magistrate was justified in passing an adhoc ex parte decision to condone the delay before ordering notice, the petitioner must get an opportunity to raise his objections against the decision to condone the delay. I find the said submission to be absolutely justified. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that these revision petitions can be dismissed with appropriate observations.

3. In these circumstances these revision petitions are dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be permitted to raise his objections against the adhoc ex parte decision to condone the delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by invoking the powers under the proviso to Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act. Such objections to be raised by the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of on merits by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law after giving both sides opportunity to raise and substantiate their contentions. Such objections shall be raised by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate by filing appropriate written objections before the next date of posting of the cases or within 10 days whichever is later. Hand over a copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith for production before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.