Shabeer vs M/S.Integrated Finance Co on 25 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3235 of 2008()


1. SHABEER, MANGULAM HOUSE, MUTTADA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S.INTEGRATED FINANCE CO,LTD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :25/08/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Crl.M.C.No. 3235 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance has been taken. It is

submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the learned

Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. But subsequently on the

ground that the petitioner did not appear before the learned

Magistrate, coercive processes have been issued against him.

The petitioner finds such processes issued by the learned

Magistrate chasing him.

2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent.

His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of

reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender 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.

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

learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

Crl.M.C.No. 3235 of 2008
2

circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the

learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned

Sessions 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 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