IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2005 IN MC.24/2004 IN CC.221/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RAJAN KURUP, S/O.KUDANNA UNNITHAN, AUKKOTTUKKONAM, CHEMMARUTHY DESOM, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE. 2. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, JAYA BHAVAN, MTHANA DESOM, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.1274 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24 th day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioners were the sureties for the accused in C.C.No.221 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Varkala. Consequent on the non-appearance of the accused before the court below, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Section 446 Cr.P.C by registering M.C. No.24 of 2004. As per Annexure A order dated 5.3.2005 the learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on each of the petitioners. The said order is challenged in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, on the ground that the petitioner did not receive any notice in the above proceedings. 2. The order on the face of it shows that notice was served on the petitioners and they were called absent and set ex parte. The remedy of the petitioners is to file an appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. Without availing of the statutory remedy they cannot rush to this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, if the petitioners file an appeal before the Crl. M.C. No.1274 of 2010 2 appropriate court within two weeks from today explaining the delay in filing the appeal, their application for condoning the delay shall be considered expeditiously. According to the petitioners, C.C.No.221 of 2002 were subsequently settled and the complainant has withdrawn the case against the accused. All further revenue recovery proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioners to get appropriate interim orders in the appeal to be filed within two weeks. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj