IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND MAY 2008 / 12TH VAISAKHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1790 of 2008 ---------------------------------- C.C. 1733/2007 (ORIGINALLY S.T. 1027/2005 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ M.T.ZACHARIA, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT A.G.R.A-88, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR, SRI.G.SURARSHAN, SRI.S.VINODKUMAR, SRI.AMJITH G.K. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. SMT. T.N. GIRIJA , S.C. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/05/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 1791/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.Nos.1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800, 1801, 1802 & 1803 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these petitions faces prosecutions before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. Such prosecutions are initiated under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. But consequent to non appearance of the petitioner when the cases were called, warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner. Such coercive processes are chasing the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. The number of cases were altered and on account of the confusion about the number, he could not be present before the court when the cases were called. In any view of the matter, the petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It Crl.M.C.Nos.1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800, 1801, 1802 & 1803 of 2008 2 is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is 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 Magistrate would not consider such application 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 in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 4. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C.Nos.1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1800, 1801, 1802 & 1803 of 2008 3