High Court Kerala High Court

Mavis Davis vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Mavis Davis vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 15 of 2011()


1. MAVIS DAVIS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :21/01/2011

 O R D E R
                  THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

                 ----------------------------------------

                     Crl.M.C.No.15 of 2011

                  ---------------------------------------

              Dated this 21st day of January, 2011

                               ORDER

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.335 of 2008 (wrongly

stated in the petition as Crime No.355 of 2008) of Vadanappallay

Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.420, 406, 417,

456 r/w 34 of the Penal Code. Since the passport of the petitioner

was to expire on 07.01.2011 he made an application to the

authorities concerned for renewal of the passport. That request

was rejected by the said authority for the reason that a criminal

case (Crime No.335 of 2008) is pending against petitioner.

Thereon, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.9222 of 2010 (in C.C.No.1487

of 2008) before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Chavakkad for direction to issue certificate to facilitate renewal

of the licence in view of notification No.GSR 570(E) dated

25.08.1993. That application was dismissed by the learned

Magistrate for the reason that proceedings (in C.C.No.1487 of

2008) has been stayed by this court as per order dated

15.10.2010 for two months, counsel for first accused submitted

that the stay was extended for a period of two months but,

petitioner did not produce either a copy of the order or file

Crl.M.C.No.15 of 2011
-: 2 :-

affidavit as directed by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel

requested that learned Magistrate may be directed to consider

the application on merit.

2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Assuming that there is stay of proceedings in

C.C.No.1487 of 2008 that need not prevent learned Magistrate

from considering C.M.P.No.9222 of 2010. Hence I am inclined to

sent the application back to learned Magistrate for fresh

consideration as provided under law.

Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed.

Annexure-2, order dated December 31, 2010 on C.M.P.No.9222

of 2010 is set aside and that application is remitted to the

learned Magistrate for fresh consideration and decision as law

provides.

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

Sbna/-