IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(Crl.).No. 3574 of 2011(Q) ------------------------- CC.56/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTHAMANGALAM .................. PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYAN A.T., SON OF THANKAPPAN, AGED 38 YEARS, AMBATTU HOUSE, MUTHIRAKKADU BHAGOM, 10TH MILE COLONY, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT : ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM (CR.NO.380/03) THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(Crl.).No. 3574 of 2011(Q) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTHAMANGALAM IN CC.56/2009. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCLAMATION NOTICE ISSUED U/S.82 CR.P.C. BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM AGAINST THIS PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- O.P.(Crl). No.3574 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the 4th accused in C.C.No.56/2009 on the file of J.F.C.M.-I, Kothamangalam. It is seen that he surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 24.12.2005 and then he was granted bail. Subsequently, he was present or represented before the court till 7.10.2008. Thereafter he was absent and hence warrant was issued against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against A1 and A2 was already disposed of. The learned counsel submits that article stated to have been stolen was ginger. The value of the same according to the learned counsel was below Rs.2,000/- and that was why it was allowed to be compounded. The case against A3 and A4 was refiled on 23.1.2009 as C.C.No.56/2009. The petitioner is now the 2nd accused in C.C.No.56/2009. The O.P.(Crl). No.3574 of 2011 -: 2 :- learned counsel submits that the petitioner was misled to the effect that case was already disposed of as compounded though in fact the composition of the offence was had only against A1 and A2 as it originally stood. The learned Magistrate has initiated proceedings under Secs.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. for transferring the case to the register of long pending cases. The petitioner was absent in court for the last two years. But the learned counsel submits that it happened only because of improper advice given to the party. 2. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to surrender before the learned Magistrate and unless there is a direction, the learned Magistrate is likely to remand the accused. The learned counsel further submits that bail application filed by the accused may be directed to be disposed of on the same date. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, such a direction cannot be issued. But the O.P.(Crl). No.3574 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned counsel for the petitioner can convince the learned Magistrate that the case against other two accused was compounded and that he happened to be absent only because he was not properly advised by the counsel. The learned Magistrate will dispose of the bail application as expeditiously as possible. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt