IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2997 of 2010() ------------------------- ST.241/1992 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.R.SIVAPRASAD, (RETIRED DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION CENTRE, ETTUMANOOR AND IN-CHARGE OF EXTENSION CENTRE, ATTINGAL), RESIDING AT 356,13TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 080. 2. C.K.VISWANATHAN, (RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION CENTRE, THIRUVALLA AND IN-CHARGE OF EXTENSION CENTRE, ATTINGAL, RESIDING AT A-218, PRAGATI VIHAR HOSTEL, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN SMT.P.SHYNI SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW SRI.ABDUL MAJEED SRI.MUHAMMED SOHAILKHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.J.GOPALAKRISHNAN, INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR IF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HOLDING ADDITIONAL, HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.2997 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date:28th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.No.241/1992 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram for an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure A8 complaint and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The above case involve summons trial. 2. It is too early for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings and also consider whether the ingredients of the offences are made out in the prosecution records. The Magistrate can state the substance of accusation to the accused and record their plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C only if the substance of accusation contain the ingredients of the offence alleged. In the light of the decision in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 617), it is open to the petitioners to raise the present contentions at the time when the learned Magistrate record their plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Crl. M.C. No.2997 of 2010 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pray for exemption from appearance while raising the above plea before the Magistrate. I am inclined to permit the petitioners to be represented through their counsel. Accordingly, if the petitioners file a petition for exemption during the stage of 251 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall consider the contention of the petitioners without insisting on their personal appearance. The plea of the accused can be recorded through their counsel in the case the learned Magistrate finds it necessary to proceed under Section 251 Cr.P.C. This Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of as above. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb