IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Crl.M.C.No. 2717 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.C.NO.1456/2004 AND L.P 10/2006 OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------- SANTHOSH MATHEW, S/O.ABRAHAM MATHEW URUMBITHADATHIL HOUSE, KUDIYANMALA PO., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------- 1. M/S.MOHAN TRADING CO., KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY SRI AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2717 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2004, it appears from the number assigned to the case as S.T.C. No.1456 of 2004. The petitioner did not enter appearance before the learned Magistrate. The case against him was hence transferred to the list of long pending cases. Reckoning him as an absconding accused coercive processes have been issued against him by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him. 2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent. His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Crl.M.C.No. 2717 of 2008 2 3. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Sessions Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm