Thulasidas vs M/S. Indraprestha Hire Purchase & on 1 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4366 of 2010()


1. THULASIDAS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. INDRAPRESTHA HIRE PURCHASE &
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :01/11/2010

 O R D E R
            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
          ===========================
          CRL.M.C.No. 4366   OF 2010
          ===========================

    Dated this the 1st day of November,2010

                     ORDER

Petitioner the accused, in C.C.1003/2009

now pending as L.P.79/2010 on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Kodungallur, filed this petition challenging

Annexure III order passed by the learned

Magistrate dismissing his application filed

under section 205 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner was heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel is

that the offence alleged against the petitioner

is only under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and as held by this court

presence of the petitioner is to be dispensed

with during trial and the learned Magistrate is

Crl.M.C.4366/2010 2

not justified in dismissing the application on the

ground that case is included in the long pending

register.

4. Annexure II is the application filed under

section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure before

the learned Magistrate. That application was filed

not by the party, but for the accused by the

counsel. When presence of the petitioner is to be

dispensed with during trial, it is for him to apply

stating that if permission is granted, on his

behalf his counsel will appear and evidence could

be recorded in his absence treating presence of

the counsel as his presence, undertaking that he

will not challenge the evidence so recorded either

before that court or in appeal or revision and he

will not dispute the identity. As the application

is not filed by the party, I do not find any reason

to interfere with Annexure III order. Annexure III

will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file

a proper application before the learned Magistrate

in accordance with law.

Crl.M.C.4366/2010 3

Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006