IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 998 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.40/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. S.S.SAINUDHEEN, PROPRIETOR, EXCEL THREADS INDUSTRY, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, PUDUKKALAVATTOM, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI. 2. SHRI.AL HADALY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.POWER, 23/1836, 1, 2ND FLOOR, SAFAR BUILDING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ERNAKULAM II DIVISION, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 998 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C.No.40/2005 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for offences punishable under various sub sections of Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seek to quash the complaint and further proceedings. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General. 3. Admittedly, the court below has not framed charge against the petitioners. The stage for framing the charge is yet to arise. 4. Having regard to the voluminous documentary evidence and innumerable witnesses for the prosecution, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly, if the petitioners file an application for discharge at the relevant stage, the said application shall be considered and orders passed without insisting on the personal appearance of Crl.M.C.No.998 of 2008 2 the petitioners at the pre-charge stage as well. The petitioners shall be permitted to plead for a discharge in absentia. In case the petitioners personal appearance is dispensed with by the Magistrate on their application, it shall not be open to the petitioner to contend that the examination of witnesses at the pre-charge stage was behind their back, in violation of Section 273 Cr.P.C. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj