IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 715 of 2010() ----------------------------------- ST.143/2008 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. L.A. XAVIER 'D'CRUZ, T.C.NO.44/614, VALIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LINUS EXPORTS & IMPORTS, T.C.NO.44/614, VALIYATHURA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ITS REP.BY L.A. XAVIER D' CRUZ, PROPRIETER. BY ADV. MR.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL VAHID. M.K, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KASIM, BISMILLA MANZIL, T.C.NO.35/899, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.715 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the complainant in S.T.No.143/2008 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the second respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that first petitioner is aged 65 years and no statutory notice, as provided under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, was served on the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. The question whether notice was served on the petitioners is a matter which is to be settled by the Magistrate on the evidence, at the time of trial. CRMC 715/10 2 Petitioners are at liberty to raise this contention at the time of trial. Petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the Magistrate and seek an order of bail. Petitioners are also at liberty to file a petition under Section 205 of Code of Criminal procedure to dispense with their presence at the time of trial. If such an application is filed, Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, in the light of the decisions of this Court. Learned counsel sought a direction to the Magistrate to consider the application for bail on the date of surrender. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or that he will not act in accordance with law. Hence, no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. 2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv