IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3191 of 2009()
1. V. RAMANI, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, RAVINDRAM,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3191 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1944/2007
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court-II, Ettumanoor, taken cognizance for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. On 11.8.2009, when the case was posted,
petitioner was absent and there was no
representation. Hence, Non bailable warrant was
issued, which was being repeated even on 26.9.2009.
The case was then posted to 6.10.2009. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the order issuing non
bailable warrant contending that petitioner was
exempted from personal appearance on filing an
application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and therefore, learned Magistrate was not
justified in issuing a non bailable warrant.
CRMC 3191/09 2
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
was heard.
3. Argument of the learned counsel is that as
evidenced by Annexure-C medical certificate,
petitioner was not in a position to move and in
such circumstances, the non bailable warrant is to
be recalled or the order is to be quashed.
4. Even if petitioner was granted exemption
under Section 205 of Code of Criminal procedure, it
was on condition that his counsel must be present
and presence of the counsel is to be treated as the
presence of the petitioner and evidence could be
recorded in the absence of the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, neither he nor the
counsel was present when the case was taken up. In
such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere
with the order issuing non bailable warrant. Though
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner is not in a position to
walk, Anneuxre-C medical certificate, issued on
CRMC 3191/09 3
8.9.2009, shows that petitioner was advised to take
rest only for ten days, as he was unable to walk.
That does not mean that he is not in a position to
appear before the court thereafter. Petitioner is
at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate and
apply to recall the non bailable warrant and show
cause why neither he nor the counsel was absent on
the day when the case was posted.
Petition is disposed.
7th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv