IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2346 of 2007(Y)
1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. RANGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2346 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the
Abkari Act. The petitioner was allegedly found to be in possession of
1.5 litres of arrack. Final report has now been filed. Cognizance has
been taken. The committal proceedings as C.P.No.35 of 2007(and not
C.P.No.358 of 2003 as shown in the petition) before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumkandom has been registered.
Consequent to non appearance of the petitioner, a warrant of arrest
has been issued against the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent. His absence
was not wilful. No notice or summons of the court was served on him.
The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate
and co-operate with the court for the expeditious disposal of the case.
But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered
by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law (in compliance with
the directions in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]),
on merits and expeditiously.
3. I find no merit in the prayer to invoke the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to appear before the
learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the
Crl.M.C.No.2346 of 2007 2
circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the
learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned
Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same
in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1)
K.L.T 22] and Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. No special or specific direction appears to
be necessary.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously –
on the date of surrender itself.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.2346 of 2007 3