IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3040 of 2011() ------------------------------------- STC.NO. 442/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SAREENA HASHIM.C.C, ASHIYANAN,POST DHARMADAM,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SURAJ.P.A,S/O.P.SURESH BABU, KUNHIPANAN HOUSE,POST AZHIKODE,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 009. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.3040/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL IN STC.442/2011 OF THE JFCM-II KANNUR FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE EXEMPTION PETITION NO- C.M.P.2431/2011 IN STC.442/2011 OF THE JFCM-II KANNUR DATED 20/6/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE WRITTEN COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/7/2011 IN CMP- 2431/2011 IN STC.442/2011 OF THE JFCM-II KANNUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3040 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.442/2011, which is pending before J.F.C.M.-II, Kannur. That is a case filed against her alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The learned counsel submits that the application filed by the accused for exemption from personal appearance under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has stated that the place of residence of the accused is not far away and so the reasons stated is not a ground to grant exemption. The learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate has not exercised the discretion properly. I cannot fully accept that submission. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there are other cases between the complainant and the accused pending in the very same court. The counsel for Crl.M.C. No.3040 of 2011 -: 2 :- the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a sucking baby and so insisting physical presence on all hearing dates may cause hardship to the accused. If a general exemption under Sec.205 is granted sometimes that may affect the speedy disposal of the case. However, the learned Magistrate will see that physical presence of the petitioner should not be insisted on all hearing dates but only on the dates when the presence of the accused is absolutely necessary. The accused will be present when the case is actually posted for evidence, unless otherwise directed by the Magistrate. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as stated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt