IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4182 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.421/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- SAJIDA BANU, W/O.A.R.ABDULLA, AGED 68 YEARS, 51 WEST GATE, TERRACE FLAT NO.9C THEVARA P.O., KOCHI - 682 013. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.RAHIM, S/O.CHERIYA BAVA, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER EGJAZ MANZIL, THAYIL THODI, BEPUR P.O KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC NO.4183 & 4191/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 4182, 4183 & 4191 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner – a woman, faces indictment as the 2nd accused in three separate prosecutions – all under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and initiated by the same complainant. The petitioner faces indictment as accused in such prosecution under Sec.138 read with Sec.141 of the N.I. Act on the crucial allegation that she is in charge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. The petitioner had entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail. She was appearing before court also either directly or through counsel. On 28/7/08 when all these cases came up for recording evidence, the petitioner was not personally present. Her counsel was also not present; but the junior Crl.M.C. Nos. 4182, 4183 & 4191 of 2008 -: 2 :- to that counsel appeared and prayed for time for cross- examination. Time was not granted and non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner now wants to appear before the learned Magistrate and take part in the proceedings. She apprehends imminent arrest. She apprehends that her application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. She only prays that directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to ensure that the dicta in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339) and Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) KLT 16) are complied with and that the petitioner's application for regular bail is considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 2. I am not persuaded to agree that any special or specific direction deserves to be issued. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George and Jain Babu (supra). I am not satisfied that any special or separate direction deserves to be issued in each case to the learned Magistrate to comply with the Crl.M.C. Nos. 4182, 4183 & 4191 of 2008 -: 3 :- directions in Alice George and Jain Babu (supra). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate shall not follow the decision in Alice George and Jain Babu (supra). If there be non-compliance, the avenues of challenge/complaint are available to the petitioner. 3. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed, but with the above specific observations. 4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge