IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH MAY 2010 / 14TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1540 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.217/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3: --------------- M.LIJU, MEENATHETHIL HOUSE CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.M.FIROZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1540 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petitioner is an Advocate and accused No.3 in C.C.No.217 of 2004 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Indian Arms Act. Petitioner is apprehensive that if his physical presence is not made available on any day non bailable warrant may be issued to him. He therefore seeks a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to order his exemption from personal appearance. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that unless personal exemption is granted if petitioner absented himself from appearance in court for any reason whatsoever is likely to be visited with a non bailable warrant. Learned counsel says that on the previous posting day of the case petitioner was present to receive the charge against him but, the case had to be adjourned on account of absence of some of other accused. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Concededly petitioner has not moved any application for exemption from personal appearance permanently or otherwise before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Supreme Court in Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shashi Agrawal and others (2009 (4) Supreme 85) has stated that bail or Crl.M.C.No.1540/2010 2 exemption cannot be ordered while considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner has to approach the court concerned with appropriate application. I make it clear that if the petitioner preferred any such application learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will consider the same in accordance with law and taking into account the factual circumstances emerging in the case. With the above direction this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks