Joby Joseph vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 2 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2119 of 2007()


1. JOBY JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.RAJAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                  R.BASANT, J

                         ------------------------------------

                          Crl.M.C.No.2119 of 2007

                        -------------------------------------

                      Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007


                                    O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequent to his non

appearance before the learned Magistrate, the case against him has

been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases and a warrant of

arrest has been issued against the petitioner to procure his presence.

According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence

was not wilful. He is prepared to surrender before the learned

Magistrate and co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the case. But

the petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not

be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. Therefore it is prayed that directions

under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner.

2. It is 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 Magistrate

would not consider such application 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

Crl.M.C.No.2119 of 2007 2

directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

3. 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.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioner today itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.2119 of 2007 3