IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2166 of 2009() ------------------------- ST.678/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2: -------------------------------------------- SANDEEP, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, E.COM COMPU SOM LTD., IST FLOOR, DOHA COMPLEX, OPP TAGORE CENTENARY HALL, R.C.ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL JABBAR.K., S/O.C.K.MAMOO, `RARIRAM', BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BASHEER AHAMED, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, P.M.HOUSE, ST.VINCENT COLONY, KALATHIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.2166 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in S.T.678/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikod. This petition is filed for a direction to the Magistrate to permit him to appear through a counsel as laid down in Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) K.L.C.1 and Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala (2008(4) K.L.T 671). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application filed under section 205(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed and Annexure I extract of the proceedings of the learned Magistrate was relied on, it does not show on what ground petitioner sought exemption and whether he had complied with the conditions provided under section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstance, a direction as sought for cannot be granted. If petitioner files a proper application as Crl.M.C.2166/2009 2 provided under section 205(1) undertaking that he will not dispute the identity and he would be represented by his counsel on all the posting dates and presence of his counsel could be treated as his presence and evidence so recorded will not be challenged before that court or the appellate court or revisional court on the ground of his absence, learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with law considering the decision of this Court in Jain Babu's case (supra). Petition is disposed of accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006