IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4039 of 2011() ------------------------------------- C.M.P.441/2011 IN ST. NO.2445/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VII, ERNAKULAM. .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- K.N. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, 8/2124, KADAYEDATH HOUSE, NEW ROAD, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT NO.1: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED, COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY'S ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, OPPOSITE SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, BANERGI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BABY SUJATHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.MC.No. 4039 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF EXEMPTION PETITION AS CMP.356/2010 IN ST.2445/2008. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUING WARRANT IN CMP NO.441/2011 IN ST.2445/2008 DATED 16/9/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4039 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November 2011 O R D E R Annexure A2 order is under challenge in this petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the cause title has been wrongly typed. The learned counsel appearing for the accused – K.N.Ramachandran is actually shown as appearing for the complainant. 2. The learned counsel submits that the accused was present at the time of recording of the evidence and he has already been examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was posted for defence evidence. An application was filed on behalf of the accused to send the disputed cheque for expert opinion. According to the learned counsel, for the consideration of that application the physical presence of the accused was not required. He is represented in court by his counsel. He was earlier allowed to be represented under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. also. If the Crl.M.C. No.4039 of 2011 -: 2 :- petition filed by the accused is disposed of, when the case was posted for judgment, the petitioner will certainly appear before the learned Magistrate, so submits the learned counsel. The learned Magistrate will recall the warrant issued against the petitioner. But if the accused fails to appear before the court on the date when the case is posted for judgment, the learned Magistrate will issue appropriate orders to secure the presence of the accused. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt