IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 773 of 2009() ------------------------------- (C.C. NO. 209 OF 2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOYILANDI) PETITIONERS: ACCUSED. ------------------------------------ 1. T.R.REGHULAL, S/O. T.R.RAGHAVAN, PARTNER, ELITE AGRO SPECIALITIES, PERINGADOOR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT MANDASSERY HOUSE, WOMENS CLUB ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. SARIGHA REGHULAL, D/O. K.MADHAVAN, PARTNER, ELITE AGRO SPECIALITIES, PERINGADOOR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT MANDASSERY HOUSE, WOMEN'S CLUB ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE. -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 773 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This application is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure III order in C.M.P. No.40/2009 and direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Koyilandy, to exempt the petitioners from personal appearance on the date of pronouncing the judgment. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 9.1.2009 dismissed the prayer holding that the ruling cited is one relating to summons trial and the proceedings of warrant trial is followed in this case. When a report was called for, the learned Magistrate has submitted that he has not given the entire reasons in the order for directing the parties to be presented. Therefore I direct the learned Magistrate to consider the matter afresh and the Magistrate while applying his mind shall have a reference to Section 353(6) as well and if the court feels that their presence need not be there on account of Section 353(6), then necessarily one need not have to insist the persons even if it is a warrant trial. But it is that court which knows about the conviction or Crl.M.C. 773/2009 -2- acquittal as the case may be. So I set aside the order under challenge and direct the learned Magistrate to consider the matter afresh after hearing and then give appropriate directions in compliance with law. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm