IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 269 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.2788/2008 Dated 06/05/2008 CP.89/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM (OR 147/2007) O.R.NO.147/07 OF KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- MOHANAN, S/O.MADHAVA PANICKER, KUINNUVILA VEEDU, KURISUMUTTOM DESOM,VILAPPIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM, REP.BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.269 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20 th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage or thereafter. Cognizance has now been taken. A summons has been issued to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has to appear before the learned Magistrate in obedience to the summons issued on 27.01.09. The petitioner has rushed to this Court with this application for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the nature of directions that the petitioner wants this Court to issue ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as only a summons and not a warrant has been issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail in the light of the decision in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [2008(3) KLJ 173]. The petitioner wants a direction to be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the learned Magistrate to follow the decision in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala (supra). Crl.M.C. No.269 of 2009 2 3. It is totally unnecessary for this Court to issue directions in subsequent proceedings to the Magistracy to follow the earlier decisions of this Court. The petitioner need only cite the decision before the court below and it is the duty of the court thereupon to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. I am not persuaded to agree that in every subsequent proceedings directions must be issued by this Court to the subordinate judiciary to follow the binding precedents laid down earlier. If such precedents are not followed, the avenues of challenge/complaint shall be available to the petitioner. 4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-