IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4895 of 2008()
1. MATHAI EAPEN, VETTATH HOUSE, HOUSE NO.76
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.EAPEN MATHAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/01/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4895 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009
ORDER
Petitioner in this Crl.M.C faces allegations in a crime
registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section
471 I.P.C. Altogether there were 3 accused persons.
Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by
the police after due investigation. Both the other accused are no
more, it is seen recorded. The allegation is that the petitioner
herein, the 1st accused, entered into a conspiracy with accused 2
and 3 and obtained a forged B.Com. degree certificate. He
allegedly made use of the same to secure admission in the L.LB
course and after passing the L.LB degree examination, he got
himself enrolled as an Advocate and is practicing before various
courts.
2. The crime was registered as early as in 1991. Final
report has been filed. Cognizance was taken. It is not necessary
to narrate in detail the sequence of events. The matter now
stands posted for framing of charges. The proceedings are at the
stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner has come to this court with a grievance
that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not furnished to
Crl.M.C. No.4895 of 2008 2
him all the necessary documents and that his prayer for copies of
documents has been turned down unjustifiably. Against the
rejection of his prayer, he preferred a revision petition and that
revision petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on
the ground that it is an interlocutory order. The petitioner has
come before this Court with this application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
4. Report of the learned C.J.M was called for. The
learned C.J.M reports that the petitioner is deliberately
attempting to delay and protract the proceedings. He is not
appearing before the court. The matter was posted for hearing
under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The petitioner did not advance
his arguments and the matter now stands posted for framing
charges.
5. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that I need only
direct the learned Magistrate to give the petitioner an
opportunity to advance his argument for discharge on the next
date of posting which is said to be on 12.01.09. After hearing
the learned counsel for the petitioner a decision shall be taken
under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. If no arguments are advanced,
the learned Magistrate can assume and infer that the petitioner
does not want to argue for discharge and proceed to pass
Crl.M.C. No.4895 of 2008 3
appropriate orders. I am not persuaded to accept the grievance
that the copies of the documents have not been furnished to the
petitioner. Long earlier hearing on charges was held and the
petitioner was discharged, which order of discharge was
challenged before this Court. That challenge was upheld. The
Supreme Court had turned down the challenge against the order
of this Court. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the
contention that the petitioner has not been furnished with
necessary documents.
6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that the petitioner can advance
arguments, if any, on 12.01.09 before the learned Magistrate
after appearing in person before the learned Magistrate. If the
petitioner does not advance any arguments, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate can assume that the petitioner does not want
to argue for discharge and he can proceed to pass appropriate
orders. If the petitioner does not personally appear on 12.01.09,
coercive steps can be taken against the petitioner and his
sureties to procure the presence of the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-