IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 973 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.64/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU, S/O.C.V.JOSEPH, ESTATE BUNGALOW, PADAGIRI, NELLIAMPATHY. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NELLIAMPATHY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................................... Crl.R.P. No.973 of 2010 .......................................................... Dated, this the 19 th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner, who is the 1st accused in C.C.No.64 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M,Alathur for offences punishable under Sections 27(4)(b) and 27(1)(e)(III)&(4) of the Kerala Forest Act, challenges Annexures 6 and 7 orders dated 23.11.2009 as per which the learned Magistrate dismissed C.M.P.Nos.3750 of 2009 and 3751 of 2009. In C.M.P.No.3750 of 2009, the prayer of the petitioner was to exempt him from personal appearance and allow him to report though his counsel. The said petition was dismissed since the petitioner had never appeared before that Court ever since the registration of the case in the year 1998. CMP No.3751 of 2009 was to discharge the petitioner under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The said petition was dismissed holding that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences. 2. Since the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for trial of the petitioner, the Magistrate was perfectly justified in dismissing the discharge petition and proceeding to frame Crl.R..P. No.973/2010 -:2:- charge against him. The argument that Annexure 7 is a non- speaking order cannot be countenanced, since by dismissing the discharge application and proceeding to frame charge, the Magistrate was not prematurely terminating the proceedings and therefore was not bound to give reasons. Hence, the only course now open to the petitioner is to face the trial of the case. His application for personal exemption was dismissed by the Magistrate since he had never appeared before the trial court since 1998. In case the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate, within two weeks from today, and applies for bail, he shall be released on bail on appropriate conditions ensuring his presence before the Court for trial of the case. If a question of identity does not arise, it shall be open to the petitioner to apply for personal exemption after he is released on bail. In case such an application containing necessary averments is filed the learned Magistrate shall consider the same favourably and pass appropriate orders. This revision is disposed of accordingly. Warrants, if any, pending against the petitioner shall not the executed for a period of two weeks. Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj