Jimson C.J vs Efficient Marketing on 26 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2017 of 2007()


1. JIMSON C.J.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EFFICIENT MARKETING,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ANIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/06/2007

 O R D E R
                                   R. BASANT, J.

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

                          Crl.M.C.No. 2017  of   2007

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

                    Dated this the 26th  day of   June, 2007


                                       O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner allegedly did not receive any

summons. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.

Reckoning him as absconding, though no summons was served on

him, the learned Magistrate has issued warrant to procure his

presence. The petitioner is willing to appear before the learned

Magistrate. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not

be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with

law and expeditiously. It is in these circumstances prayed that

appropriate directions may be issued to release the petitioner on bail

on the date of surrender itself.

3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances

under which he could not appear before the learned Magistrate. I

have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not

consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he

surrenders before the learned Magistrate, on merits, in accordance

Crl.M.C.No. 2017 of 2007

2

with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions

have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v.

Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten

to observe 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 orders on

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm