IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1838 of 2007()
1. FATIMA,SUHARA HYDER, W/O.HYDER ALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.D.JOHNY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/06/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1838 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner was not available
and did not appear before the learned Magistrate. Consequently a
warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. She now
wants to appear before the learned Magistrate and plead guilty to the
allegations under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. But she apprehends
that her application for bail may not be considered by the learned
Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. She
further apprehends that the learned Magistrate may not consider the
decision in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) KLT 852) while
deciding on the question of sentence to be imposed. In these
circumstances she prays that appropriate directions may be issued to
the learned Magistrate under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. I find the apprehensions of the petitioner to be without any
merit. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances
Crl.M.C.No. 1838 of 2007
2
under which she could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. If
she wants to plead guilty, she can do the same. Needless to say, the learned
Magistrate must consider the same expeditiously. I have no reason to
assume that the learned Magistrate would not abide by the decision relating
to imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act. 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).
3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above
observations/directions. I may 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.
4. Hand over copy of the order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge
Crl.M.C.No. 1838 of 2007
3