SIJO E THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against dismissal of a complaint filed by him on the ground that he did not produce correct address of the accused.

(2.) The prosecution is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in respect of a cheque for Rs.30,000/- Summons was ordered to the accused on 23.10.2003. The presence of the accused could not be secured. On 4.7.006, summons was returned unserved stating that there is no such addressee. The petitioner was directed to produce correct address on 17.7.2006. On 17.7.2006 the complainant could not produce the correct address. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a request was made to the court to give time to furnish the correct address. However, the order impugned shows that no such request was made. The learned Magistrate thereupon proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. dismissing the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact a request was made for further time to furnish the correct address. But even assuming the same has not been done, the learned Magistrate should not have dismissed the complaint and a reasonable further opportunity must have been given to the petitioner to furnish the correct address of the accused. The accused is at Bangalore and the petitioner was not able to trace the correct address within the period of 13 days that was given by the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances, at any rate, condoning the alleged lapse on the part of the complainant in not furnishing the correct address on 17.7.l06 and not making a proper representation, a further opportunity must have been granted to the complainant to prosecute his complaint. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been prosecuting his complaint for the last three years with due diligence and his efforts may not be rendered futile and vain only because he could not furnish the correct address within the 13 days, which was granted by the learned Magistrate. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the petitioner deserves to be granted a further opportunity to take necessary steps and prosecute his complaint. In coming to this conclusion I have anxiously considered the sequence of events from 23.10.2003 to 17.7.2006, the date of the impugned order, which are revealed from the certified copy of the order sheet produced by the petitioner before this Court for perusal.