High Court Kerala High Court

Reji Kuruvila vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Reji Kuruvila vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 147 of 2011()


1. REJI KURUVILA, KOIPPURATHU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.C.THOMAS, S/O.CHACKO, PROPRIETOR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/01/2011

 O R D E R
                              THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

                             --------------------------------------
                               Crl.M.C. No.147 of 2011
                             --------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011.

                                          ORDER

Annexure-A2, order dated July 3, 2010 on C.M.P.No.813 of 2010 in

C.C.No.1577 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,

Aluva is under challenge. Petitioner is involved in C.C.No.1577 of 2009 for

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It

appears that petitioner was granted permanent exemption but, the counsel did

not appear on the relevant day. Thereon bail was cancelled and non-bailable

warrant was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.813 of 2010 for

permanent exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Though learned Magistrate permitted petitioner to continue on bail as his

counsel filed affidavit stating that due to his mistake he failed to appear in court.

But the request for permanent exemption was disallowed as per Annexure-A2,

order for the reason that since the proceedings are at the fag end, there is no

need to grant permanent exemption.

2. It is not disputed that the case is posted for defence evidence. If

that be so, at this stage there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary

jurisdiction exercised by learned Magistrate not to grant permanent exemption.

But that order need not stand in the way of petitioner making request for

exemption on any particular day if he has appropriate reason to make such a

Crl.M.C.No.147 of 2011

2

request. If any such request is made, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,

Aluva shall consider such request in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case.

With the above observation this petition is closed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks