High Court Kerala High Court

P.U.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.U.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3639 of 2008()



1. P.U.JOY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/09/2008

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
               Crl.M.C. Nos.3639 and 3640 of 2008
                     -------------------------------------
           Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008

                                  ORDER

The common petitioner in these two petitions, who faces

indictment before two different courts, both under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, who had appeared earlier

before the learned Magistrates through counsel and against

whom coercive processes have now been issued by the learned

Magistrate, has now come to this Court with this petition praying

for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned

Magistrates to comply with the dictum in Alice George v. The

Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339] and to

consider his applications for bail to be filed by him when he

surrenders before the learned Magistrates on merits, in

accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender

itself.

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

Crl.M.C. Nos.3639 and 3640 of 2008 2

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 petitioners.

3. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances,

dismissed, but with the above specific observations.

4. Hand over two copies of this order to the learned

counsel for the petitioner for production before the courts below.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-