IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4897 of 2008() ------------------------- MP.2920/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- K.R.HASHIR, S/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED, KADAMBATHI VEETTIL, ERIYAD.P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 666. BY ADV. SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP. BY S.I.OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION. 2. SUBAIR, S/O.SAINUDHEEN HAJI, SRAMBICKAL HOUSE, NJALAKAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 033. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.4898 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. Nos.4897 & 4898 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner faces indictment in two separate prosecutions, both before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva. According to the petitioner, the prosecutions are initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner gathers that cognizance has not been taken yet and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are numbered as Crl.M.Ps. From this, the learned counsel assumes that in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there must be some applications for condonation of delay pending. The petitioner has received notice to appear before the learned Magistrate on 19.12.08. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the court below may be directed to permit the petitioner to be represented by his counsel. He prays that the dictum in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008 (4) KLT 16] may be directed to be followed. Crl.M.C. Nos.4897 & 4898 of 2008 2 3. Every Court is bound to follow the dictum in Jain Babu v. Joseph (supra). I am not persuaded to agree that in subsequent proceedings separate directions have to be issued to the courts concerned to follow the dictum in Jain Babu v. Joseph. Every Court must follow the same. If the same is not followed, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available to the litigants. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that no separate directions are necessary to the court below to follow the directions in Jain Babu v. Joseph. I have no reason to assume that the court below will not follow such direction. 4. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that it shall be open to the petitioner to appear before the court below through his counsel and request that he may be exempted from personal appearance in the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-