IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4484 of 2008()
1. K.V. SHINE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/12/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 4484 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance was
taken as early as in 2006 as can be ascertained from the
number assigned to the case i.e., C.C.No.586/06. The
petitioner has not entered appearance before the learned
Magistrate. A warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, he is laid up. He has
suffered a fracture. He is unable to move around. In these
circumstances, the petitioner appeared before the court below
through counsel and filed an application under Sec.205 Cr.P.C.
It was prayed that the warrant of arrest pending against him
may be withdrawn and the petitioner may be permitted to
Crl.M.C. No. 4484 of 2008 -: 2 :-
appear through counsel before the court below as per the dictum
in Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) KLT 16). By the impugned
order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application on the
ground that there is possibility that the petitioner shall abscond
he having not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far and
proceedings under Secs.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. having already been
initiated against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a
lenient view may be taken. The petitioner is physically unable
to travel to the court. Subject to appropriate conditions the
petitioner may be permitted to participate in the trial by
appearing through counsel.
4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I
have gone through the certificate produced by the petitioner
which confirms that he has suffered a fracture of the left fibula
and needs rest for a period of 8 weeks from 4/11/08.
Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been absent
before the court below for a long period of time, I am satisfied
that a lenient view can be taken and the petitioner can be
permitted to participate in the proceedings through counsel
subject to appropriate conditions.
5. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Crl.M.C. No. 4484 of 2008 -: 3 :-
(b) The learned Magistrate is directed to exempt the
petitioner from personal appearance and permit him to be
represented by his counsel in the pending prosecution i.e.,
C.C.No.586/06.
(c) The petitioner shall appear through counsel with the
requisite authorisation including the authorisation to make his
plea through his counsel and such counsel shall represent the
petitioner until further orders are passed by the learned
Magistrate.
(d) The petitioner shall within a period of two months from
this date appear before the learned Magistrate and execute a
bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
(e) Needless to say, the coercive processes issued against
the petitioner now shall not be executed.
6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C. No. 4484 of 2008 -: 4 :-
