Loading...

Sajitha vs Prakasan on 10 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sajitha vs Prakasan on 10 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 939 of 2008()


1. SAJITHA, W/O.SANTHOSH K.K., AGED 28,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PRAKASAN, S/O.APPUTTY, MADATHINGAL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :10/03/2008

 O R D E R
                      V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   Crl.M.C.No.939 of 2008
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008

                            ORDER

The petitioner, a lady who claims to be in the early stage of

pregnancy , was the accused in C.C.No.272 of 2007 on the file of

the J.F.C.M, Kodungallur in a prosecution under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. On 28.1.08, she was convicted and sentenced by the

Magistrate. On that day, the accused and her sureties were

present and the sentence was suspended by the trial court under

Section 389(3)Cr.P.C for one month and the case was posted to

28.2.08. In the meanwhile on 27.2.08, the petitioner had filed

Crl.Appeal No.159/2008 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur and

had obtained an order suspending the sentence on certain

conditions. Therefore on 28.2.08, the petitioner claims to have

filed Annexure A2 petition asking for three days’ time for

production of the order. Somehow or other the Magistrate

appears to have issued non bailable warrants of arrest against

the petitioner. On 3.03.08, the petitioner produced the order

passed by the Sessions Judge on 27.2.08 suspending the

Crl.M.C.No.939 of 2008
2

sentence.

3. The report dated 6.3.08 of the learned Magistrate

states that, even though the Magistrate had advanced the case to

3.3.08, since the accused and their sureties were absent, the

warrant of arrest was not recalled.

4. The learned Magistrate was not justified in taking such a

stand. When as per order dated 27.2.08, the Sessions Court had

suspended the sentence subject to certain conditions, there was

no obligation on the part of the accused to appear before the

learned Magistrate on 3.3.08. Hence, warrant, if any, issued by

the Magistrate shall stand recalled and the petitioner will be

entitled to avail of the benefit of the order dated 27.2.08 in

Crl.M.P.No.791/2008 in Crl.Appeal No.159/2008 of the Sessions

Court, Thrissur.

This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

sj

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information