High Court Kerala High Court

P.J.Joseph vs P.V.Pramod on 28 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.J.Joseph vs P.V.Pramod on 28 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4602 of 2008()



1. P.J.JOSEPH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. P.V.PRAMOD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :28/11/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                    Crl.M.C. No.4602 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008

                                  ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The proceedings have

now reached the stage of defence evidence. It is submitted that

the petitioner/accused does not want to adduce any defence

evidence and the matter is only to be heard. At that juncture, on

22.11.08, when the case came up for consideration, the

petitioner and his counsel happened to be absent on account of

reasons beyond their control. Coercive processes have been

issued against the petitioner. The petitioner, who apprehends

imminent arrest in execution of such processes, has come to this

Court with this petition praying for issue of directions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to comply with the

dictum in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of

Police [2003(1) KLT 339] and to consider his application for bail

to be filed by him when he surrenders before the learned

Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously –

on the date of surrender itself.

Crl.M.C. No.4602 of 2008 2

2. Sufficient general directions have already been issued

in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

[2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for

this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in

Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police .

Every court must do the same. I have no reason to assume that

the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the

avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner.

3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the above specific observations.

4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

there shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest issued

against the petitioner shall not be executed till 12.12.08. On or

before that date, the petitioner must appear before the learned

Magistrate and seek regular bail.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-