IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1754 of 2010() PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 9 1. T.IBRAHIM, S/O. LATE MOIDEEN HAJI, NO. 58/09, KADINHIMOOLA, NILESHWAR VILLAGE. 2. P.GOPINATHAN, S/O. K.P.KELU NAIR, NO.60/09, PUTHUKAI, KANHANGAD. 3. A.KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE K.RAMANACHARI NO.59/09, KETTILAD, PALAKKAD. 4. T.NARAYANA, S/O. KUNHIPOTHUVAL, NO.59/09, SUKRITHAM, PADINJATTAM CHIRAPPURAM, KOZHUVAL. 5. P.ABDULLA, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED.M., NO. 61/09, THEKKEPPAD, KOTTACHERY. 6. RAJAN.M., S/O. LATE A.V.RAMAN, AVM (H) NO.49-09 NEAR CHC HOSPITAL, VATTAPOYIL, PEROI 7. M.GOPALAN, S/O. LATE K.KANNAN, NO.73/09, USHAS, RAMARAM, NIOLESHWAR VILLAGE. 8. B.NARAYANAN, S/O. LATE. K.KRISHNAN, NO.58/09, CHIRAKKARA, PUTHUKKAL, KANHANGAD. 9. T.V.BHASKARAN, S/O. LATE KUNHIKANAN, NO.72/09, RASHMI HOUSE, PEROL. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): STATE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.1754 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21 st day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in crime No.277 of 2009 of Neeleshwar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1961 and now pending before the J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg as STC No.55 of 2010. 2. It is too early for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to consider whether the ingredients of the offences are made out in the prosecution records. In the light of the decision in Kamalarajaram v. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 617), it is open to the petitioners to raise the contentions at the time when the learned Magistrate records their plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for exemption from appearance while raising the above plea before the Magistrate. I am inclined to permit the petitioners to be represented through their counsel. Accordingly, if the petitioners file a petition for exemption during the stage of 251 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall Crl. M.C. No.1754 of 2010 2 consider the contention of the petitioner while recording their plea without insisting on their personal appearance. The plea of the accused persons can be recorded through their counsel. This Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of as above. Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj