Santhosh Mathrew vs Mohan Trading Co. on 22 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2717 of 2008()


1. SANTHOSH MATHREW,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOHAN TRADING CO., KOPZHIKODE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/07/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Crl.M.C.No. 2717 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the

offence punishable under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act.

Cognizance was taken as early as in 2004, it appears from the

number assigned to the case as S.T.C. No.1456 of 2004. The

petitioner did not enter appearance before the learned Magistrate.

The case against him was hence transferred to the list of long

pending cases. Reckoning him as an absconding accused

coercive processes have been issued against him by the learned

Magistrate. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.

His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of

reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the

learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application for

bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits,

in accordance with law and expeditiously.

Crl.M.C.No. 2717 of 2008
2

3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances

under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate.

I have no reason to assume that the learned Sessions Magistrate would

not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when

he surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No

special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general

directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in

Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned

Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice

to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must

proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm