IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3318 of 2011 -------------------------------- CC.221/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: THAHMINA HAROON, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GOOD WILL MARKETING, C/O BEST WOOD, 559, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, ARUMBAKKOM, CHENNAI-600 106. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE RUBBER CO-OPERATIVES LTD., RUBBERISED COIR MATTRESS DIVISION, POOTHAKUZHY, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SHIBU THADEVUS XAVIER. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN CRMC 3318/2011 ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC 221/10 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-I, KOTTAYAM /TRUE COPY/ N.K.Balakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3318 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.221/20110 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam. Her husband is stated to be the second accused. The offence alleged against them is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The amount covered by the cheque is stated to be `.5,15,704/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identity of the petitioner will not be disputed at all and that since she is settled at Chennai, it would be too difficult for her to attend the court at Kottayam. According to the learned counsel, the counsel appearing for the first accused would plead under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure and so, the plea can be recorded by the learned Magistrate. Complainant is not present today. 3. If a petition on behalf of the first accused that her counsel may be permitted to plead on her behalf is filed, it can be sympathetically considered by the learned Magistrate in view of the fact that her husband/second accused is appearing in court. No doubt, if presence of the petitioner is required at the CRMC 3318/2011 2 time of trial and if the question of identity actually arises for consideration, learned Magistrate can insist for presence of the petitioner. Needless to say, petitioner/first accused should be present when the case is posted for questioning under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is disposed of as stated above. (N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge) tkv