IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3346 of 2008()
1. YOOSEFF, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
2. KUNHIMOPIDEEN @ KUNHUTTY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/09/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3346 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.365 read with
Sec.149 IPC. They have already been found not guilty and
acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The passports of the
petitioners are available before the learned Magistrate. The
petitioners, consequent to their acquittal, want the passports
back. It is submitted that they have filed applications before
the learned Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioners is
that the learned Magistrate is not disposing of those
applications. The number of the applications is not furnished
at all. No orders are passed on the applications, laments the
learned counsel for the petitioners. The office of the learned
Magistrate, it is submitted, informed the petitioners that the
Crl.M.C. No. 3346 of 2008 -: 2 :-
applications shall be dealt with only after 90 days of the date of
the judgment. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners
have come to this Court with this petition.
2. The argument that the applications filed before the
court concerned are not being numbered and taken up for
consideration cannot any more be heard to be advanced before
courts in the light of the specific directions in Gopalakrishna
Pillai v. District Superintendent of Police (2008 (3) KLT 80).
It is for the petitioners to insist that appropriate orders are
passed by the learned Magistrate on the applications filed by
them. Without seeking specific directions from the Magistrate
in the matter, I find no merit in the prayer to invoke the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court. I am,
however, satisfied that appropriate observations to help the
petitioners can be made in this Crl.M.C.
3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with specific
observation that if any petitions filed by the petitioners are
pending before the learned Magistrate now or if any such
petitions are filed by the petitioners hereafter and that the
petitioners pray for an order, the learned Magistrate must
receive the same, number the same and pass appropriate orders
expeditiously as already directed in Gopalakrishna Pillai
Crl.M.C. No. 3346 of 2008 -: 3 :-
(supra).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have to go for haj pilgrimage during the month of
Ramadan. Therefore, there may be a direction for expeditious
disposal of the applications. Needless to say, the applications of
the petitioners must, in these circumstances, be considered as
expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of 7 days
from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the
learned Magistrate.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
Crl.M.C. No. 3346 of 2008 -: 4 :-