IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4435 of 2011() ------------------------- (CC 1686 OF 2009 OF JFCM COURT-I, CHERTHALA) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- DILEEP KUMAR,S/O.SUKUMARAN, PASHNATHKAYIL,MUTHUR,POST TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. BY P.P.MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(CRL.M.C.4435/2011) PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF SUMMONS IN CC 1686/2009 OF THE JFCM COURT-1, CHERTHALA DATED 16.2.2010. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF TREATMENT DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.05.2011 ISSUED BY MIMS KOTTAKKAL. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4435 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 Order The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1686 of 2009 on the file of JFCM Court-I, Cherthala. The case against him is under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The cheque in question is for Rs.Two lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the accused had not appeared in court, but an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was filed and he was exempted from personal appearance before the court. But later the learned Magistrate ordered the accused to be present in court. He did not appear. Hence non-bailable warrant was issued against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had cardiac disease and angiogram was done on 31.5.2011. Annexure A2 report has been produced to substantiate that contention. 2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner may be again permitted to be represented through his counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The case is of the year 2009. The learned Magistrate might have insisted the presence of the accused to have the trial expedited and dispose of the case at the earliest. The learned counsel submits that if the accused appears, because Crl.M.C.4435/11 2 of the NBW which is pending against him, he is likely to be denied bail. Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued: The petitioner will surrender before the learned Magistrate within three weeks from today. He will produce all the medical records before the learned Magistrate and will convince that he was hospitalised and because of the serious ailment, he could not appear in court, in which event the learned Magistrate will certainly consider that ground and dispose of the bail application expeditiously. If the petitioner files a petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C., that has to be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, but only after hearing the complainant. If the learned Magistrate finds that when the complainant is to be examined, the presence of the petitioner is essential, then direction for his presence can be insisted. However, his presence may be necessary on the day when he is to be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.4435/11 3 Crl.M.C.4435/11 4