ELUMALAI Vs. K SUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the revision preferred by the petitioner Elumalai against the order passed in C.C. 126/93 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Villupuram, dismissing his complaint under section 204(4) of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) Mr. S.S. Kumar. Counsel appearing for the petitioner I complainant submits that the order passed by the Magistrate on 13-5-1993 dismissing the complaint under section 204(4) of Cr. P.C. is not sustainable in law, for the reasons that on two previous hearings he paid the process fee and he did not pay process fee only for the third hearing. Under such circumstances, the complaint was dismissed without giving reasonable time as provided under section 204(4) of Cr. P.C.

(3.) The Counsel for the respondent is absent. I have gone through the records and order. The diary extract filed in this case would make it clear that the complaint was filed on 2-4-1993 and the same was taken on file and the summons were issued to the respondent-accused on payment of process fee. The process fee was paid on that day. The next hearing date i.e. on 19-4-1993, the complainant was present but the accused was not present. So fresh summons were ordered. On payment of fresh process fees, again summons were issued and the case was posted on 30-4- 1993. Even on that day, the complainant was present but the accused was not present. So again summons were directed to be issued to the accused. On 13-5-1993 the complainant was present but the accused did not appear. On that date the complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that the process fee was not paid for the issuance of fresh summons on 30-4-1993.