IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3346 of 2008() --------------------------------------- (C.C.NO.912 OF 2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, PERINTHALMANNA) (CR.NO.765/2001 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: 3RD & 4TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. YOOSEFF, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, CHOYIMANGALATH HOUSE, RAMAPURAM SCHOOL PADI, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KUNHIMOPIDEEN @ KUNHUTTY, S/O.ABDULLA, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DY.S.P., MALAPPURAM, THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss 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 :-