IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2551 of 2008()
1. MANOJ KUMAR ,AGED 35
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2551 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He is the conductor of a
public transport carriage and his co-accused is the driver of the
vehicle. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons
is that the bus, of with the accused are the driver and conductor
respectively, was found proceeding along a route not authorised
by the terms of the permit granted. Cognizance has been taken
on the basis of a petty case/charge sheet/complaint filed by the
Sub Inspector of Police, Chittarickal police station who detected
the offence.
2. The petitioner prays that the proceedings against him
may be quashed. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits first of all that the route has not been
violated. The vehicle was entitled to touch Cherupuzha and it
was proceeding to Cherupuzha when the vehicle was intercepted
by the police official. In these circumstances, on the face of it
there is no substance in the allegation that any condition of the
Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 2
permit has been violated. The precise allegation is that the
vehicle which is supposed to proceed from Thaliparamba to
Cherupuzha was found proceeding along the route Bhimanadi –
Chittarickal towards Cherupuzha. I am unable to accept that the
allegations on violations of the conditions of the permit is not
justified and the prosecution is liable to be quashed for that
reason. Secondly it is contended that it does not fall within the
duty of the conductor to ensure that the vehicle proceeds along
the route prescribed. On the face of it, I am afraid this
contention cannot also be accepted. Certain other contentions
are also raised. But I am not satisfied that the said contentions
are sufficient to justify the invocation of the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am not
adverting to those contentions in greater detail lest observations
made by this court may fetter the discretions of the court below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits
that a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner by
the learned Magistrate consequent to his non appearance before
the learned Magistrate. Trial has already commenced and in
these circumstances the petitioner apprehends that his
Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 3
application for bail may not be considered by the learned
Magistrate on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously.
He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C
may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner
on bail when he appears and applies for bail.
4. 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 find absolutely no reason to assume
that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application
for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special
or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general
directions have been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy
Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].
5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner
surrenders 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
Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 4
appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. I make it clear
that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the
acceptability of the defence raised by the petitioner and the
dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of
the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions before the learned
Magistrate.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 5
Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007