ORDER

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the complainant in CMP No.2939/2017 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has been filed against the 1^st respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I.Act’, in short).

2. The petitioner had filed Annexure A1 complaint along with Annexure A2 application to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the complaint. However, by the impugned Annexure A3 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner did not let in any oral evidence to prove the delay. Aggrieved by Annexure A3 order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.89/2017 before the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur (‘Revisional Court’, in short). However, by Annexure A5 order the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision petition confirming Annexure A3 order on the finding that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Annexures A3 and A5 orders are palpably wrong and erroneous. This Court inSathya Narayanan K.S. v. Preethi and another ( 2015 (5) KHC 679 ) has categorically