IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2586 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/07/2008 IN CMP 471/08 IN ST.1872/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- ASOORA BEEVI, ANZARI MANZIL, 355, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. THE SENIOR MANAGER, KERELA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK LTD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008 ALONG WITH CRRP 2588 OF 2008 AND CRRP 2591 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. Nos. 2586 of 2008, 2588 of 2008 and 2591 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 4-8-2008 ORDER The petitioners in these revisions are three sisters and the common first respondent is the Kerala State Co-operative Society Bank Ltd., Palayam, Thiruvanantahpuram. The petitioners are the accused in S.T. Nos. 1872/07, 1871/07 and 1869 of 2007 respectively before the J.F.C.M. IV (Mobile Court), Thiruvananthapuram, which are prosecutions under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In all these cases a request was made before the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioners to represent through their lawyer during the examination of the accused under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The petitions filed in that behalf were dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, these revisions. 2. Since no right of the first respondent/complainant is being violated by allowing these revisions, notice to the first Crl. R.P. Nos. 2586 of 2008, 2588 of 2008 and 2591 of 2008 -:2:- respondent/complainant is dispensed with. 3. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 3214 and that of this Court in 2005 (3) KLT 303 and 2005 (4) KLT 76 it was only fair and proper that the learned Magistrate allowed the request of the petitioners. Whether on the ground of religious restriction or otherwise, the court below ought to have permitted the revision petitioners to be represented through their counsel at the time of examination under Sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. The impugned orders dated 21-07-2008 are accordingly set aside and the petitioners shall be permitted to be represented through their counsel at the time of examination under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The applications filed in that behalf shall stand allowed. These Revision petitions are disposed of as above. Forward a copy of this common order to the court below for information and compliance. V. Ramkumar, Judge.