Biju Joseph v. M/S.Arrow Granites
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1549 of 2015 () -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 155/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALADY) REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------------------------ BIJU JOSEPH, MANAGER (MARKETING) M/S.TRANS ASIA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.
REG.OFFICE AT TRANS ASIA CORPORATE PARK, SEA PORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANAD HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT BBTCL BUILDING SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, W/ISLAND, COCHIN-3.
BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. M/S.ARROW GRANITES M.C.ROAD, PULLUVAZHY, PERUMBAVOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SAYIN SEBASTIAN.
2. SAYIN SEBASTIAN PROPRIETOR, M/S.ARROW GRANITES, M.C.ROAD PULLUVAZHY, PERUMBAVOOR.
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR R1&2 BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.1549 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November 2015
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the petitioner in C.M.P. No.155 of 2015 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalady.
2. The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the court below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Along with the said complaint, the revision petitioner filed C.M.P.No.155 of 2015 before the court below praying for condoning the delay of 127 days in filing the same. The court below granted sufficient adjournments. However, there was no representation for the revision petitioner
Crl.R.P.1549/2015 : 2 :
before the court below on any of the said dates. In the said circumstances, the court below, on 22.4.2015, passed the order impugned on merits dismissing C.M.P. No.155 of 2015. Consequent upon the dismissal of the delay petition, the court below dismissed the complaint also. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of C.M.P. No.155 of 2015, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the counsel was practising in Perumbavoor and hence, he was not able to reach the court on time to argue the matter on 22.4.2015. The learned counsel has prayed for granting one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to contest the matter on merits. In view of the above submission, I am of the view that one
Crl.R.P.1549/2015 : 3 :
more opportunity can be granted to the revision petitioner to contest the matter on merits. That apart, it is settled law that the Court should not dispose of criminal cases without hearing the parties or the counsel. For the said reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order impugned.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal of C.M.P. No.155 of 2015 in accordance with law, after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner or the amicus curiae, as the case may be.
The parties shall appear before the court below on 22-12-2015, without further notice.
SD/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/.30.11.2015 // True Copy // PA to Judge