1. This is a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in CC 220/86 in the court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The prayer in the petition is vague and precision is not its virtue. The veiled prayer is either to review the order of this court in Crl. MC 178/87, or to quash the complaint in CC 220/86, which was earlier declined.

2. Crl. MC 178/87 was to quash the complaint in CC 220/86. A learned judge of this court (S. Padmanabhan, J.) by order dated 30-3-87 dismissed the same. The learned judge found on merits that the allegations in the complaint, if taken as correct, would constitute an offence. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel was heard, because despite two adjournments nobody appeared.

3. Petitioner would say that the order was passed 'without affording a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard'. I am not inclined to agree. The order of the learned judge reveals that the case was adjourned on 26-3-87 in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, to give another opportunity. On 30-3-87 also, neither the counsel nor the petitioner appeared. It was in this circumstance that the learned judge proceeded to deci