IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 106 of 2011() ------------------------ SC.1/2009 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- THELIKKARENTE KUTHIRUMAL RAFEEQUE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.106 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in S.C. No.1 of 2009 of the court of learned Sessions Court, Payyannur. He, along with other accused is stated to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner states that since he is abroad he would like to answer the charge under Sec.228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) and take part in the trial till it ended, through counsel. Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to permit petitioner to answer the charge and face the trial through counsel. Learned counsel has referred me to the various decisions which have held that questioning under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. could be done through counsel even in a warrant case. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Assuming that examination of the accused under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. could be done through counsel in a warrant case, I am not persuaded to think that the said principle should CRL.M.C. No.106 of 2011 -: 2 :- apply in cases involving sessions offence. Having regard to the nature of offences alleged against petitioner and that it involved serious offences triable exclusively by the sessions court I am not persuaded to think that benefit of appearance through counsel which the decisions relied on by the learned counsel have afforded to persons involved in the summons or warrant case should be extended to cases involving sessions offences. I therefore decline the request. 3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be permitted to plead discharge in the trial court. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to take up appropriate plea including discharge as provided under law if he is otherwise entitled to that. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv