IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3748 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.366/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------- FR.JOHN MADAPPATT, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 79 YEARS, NEYYOOR KARA, PULIYANNUR VILLAGE, RESIDING IN THE HOUSE OF NECHIKKATTU THOMAS, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, MUTHOLI P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.ALEX VARGHESE SRI.K.J.JOSEMON RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK Crl.MC.No. 3748 of 2011() ----------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A- TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.2117/2008 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-II, KANJIRAPPALLY. ANNEXURE B- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.154/2008 REGISTERED BY THE MANIMALA POLICE. ANNEXURE C- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MANIMALA POLICE IN CRIME NO.154/2008 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-II, KANJIRAPPALLY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3748 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 Order The petitioner is the first accused in CC No.366 of 2008 on the file of JFCM Court-II, Kanjirappally. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused is under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. The allegation is that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was obtained by him from the defacto complainant on 14.3.2000 and another sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 28.9.2000 agreeing to arrange visa for employment at Canada for the complainant's two sons and that for the money received receipts were also issued. He did not arrange the visa. According to the complainant, the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to believe that visa would be arranged and thus obtained the money. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was abroad and so he could not appear before the court when summons was issued by the court. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is aged 79 years and that his absence was not deliberate. The petitioner can show his Crl.M.C.3748 of 2011 2 passport to the learned Magistrate and convince that he was abroad from 2008 onwards. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate should be directed to dispose of the bail application on the same day itself cannot be considered in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Martin v. State of Kerala (2004(2) KLT 1037). However, the learned Magistrate will dispose of the bail application, if any, without delay and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is stated to be aged 79 years. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.3748 of 2011 3 Crl.M.C.3748 of 2011 4