M.T.Zacharia vs Enforcement Officer on 2 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1790 of 2008()


1. M.T.ZACHARIA, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/05/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
        Crl.M.C.Nos.1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800,
                    1801, 1802 & 1803 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
                Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2008

                                  ORDER

The common petitioner in these petitions faces prosecutions

before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Trivandrum. Such prosecutions are initiated under the provisions

of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act. The petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on

bail. But consequent to non appearance of the petitioner when

the cases were called, warrants of arrest have been issued

against the petitioner. Such coercive processes are chasing the

petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not

wilful or deliberate. The number of cases were altered and on

account of the confusion about the number, he could not be

present before the court when the cases were called. In any view

of the matter, the petitioner is willing to surrender before the

learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his

application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned

Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It

Crl.M.C.Nos.1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800,
1801, 1802 & 1803 of 2008 2

is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may

be issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. 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 directions have already been issued in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)

KLT 339].

4. These Crl.M.Cs are, 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.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.Nos.1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800,
1801, 1802 & 1803 of 2008 3