IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(Crl) No. 73 of 2007()
1. K.T.SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SOPHY, AGED 40 YEARS,
3. PAPPPACHAN @ JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :27/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
T.P.Crl. No.73 Of 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2007
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution, inter alia,
under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The proceedings are pending before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- Vaikom. Consequent to
nonappearance of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate
warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners by the
learned Magistrate. The petitioners have now come before this Court
with a prayer that the case against them pending before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court- Vaikom may now be transferred to any
other court at Thrissur, their native place.
2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the 1st petitioner is afflicted with diseases and finds it
difficult to proceed to Vaikom to attend the trial. Ilness of one of the
petitioners is the sole ground on which the transfer is sought.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the application.
It would be unjust and unfair to compel all the witness to proceed all
the way to Thrissur to attend the trial only to satisfy the convenience
of the petitioners. It is for the petitioners to surrender before the
Court at Vaikom, to seek bail afresh and file appropriate applications
TPCR No. 73 of 2007
2
seeking exemption under Section 317 Cr.P.C. Instead of doing that
they have rushed to this Court with this prayer to transfer the case.
It is obviously with an intention to delay or protract the proceedings,
submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I find absolutely no relevant circumstances urged before the
court to justify the prayer for transfer. The prayer therefore deserves
to be rejected. The illness of one of the petitioners is only a vague
allegation. It is certainly not sufficient to justify the prayer for transfer
the case from Vaikom to Thrissur. This transfer petition is in these
circumstances dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners apprehend that their applications for bail may not be
considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously, when
they surrender before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to
assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such
applications 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]. If they surrender, the learned Magistrate must proceed to
pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of
TPCR No. 73 of 2007
3
surrender itself.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if
personal appearance of the petitioners were insisted on all dates of
postings, it would cause irreparable loses and hardship to the
petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that until
the case reaches at the stage of 313 examination, no personal
appearance is necessary. I have no reason to assume that the
petitioners’ application for exemption would not be considered by the
learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law. Every court
must do the same. Personal appearance need not ordinarily be
insisted, unless there be valid and compelling reasons to justify such
appearance.
This transfer petition is hence dismissed but with the above
observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
sj