IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 8 of 2009() ---------------------- ST.643/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 40 YRS, S/O.K.M.GEORGE, DOOR NO.C.C.38/1896,PLOT NO.56, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.S.MOHANAN, T.C.33/304,DEVI VILAS, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, A/W. CRMC 12 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.Nos. 8 & 12 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The common petitioner in these two petitions faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cases are pending before two different courts - C.J.M., Trivandrum and J.F.M.C., Peermedu. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has entered appearance through counsel. He had applied for time to appear personally. His application was initially allowed, but later rejected. Warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner he has serious difficulties in personally appearing before court now. He wants to apply for exemption as permitted in Jain Babu v. Joseph ( 2008 (4) KLT 16). The petitioner apprehends that because of the pendency of non-bailable warrants against him, his application for exemption may not be considered by the learned Magistrates Crl.M.C.Nos. 8 & 12 of 2009 2 concerned. He therefore prays that appropriate direction may be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. A similar question came up for consideration before me and by decision in Rohit S. Ved v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KHC 745) it has been held that the mere fact that warrant has been issued and is pending against an indictee is no reason not to grant the benefit of the decision in Jain Babu (supra) to such indictee. In these circumstances notwithstanding the fact that warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner, the petitioner can appear before the Courts concerned through his counsel and apply for exemption in terms of the decision in Jain Babu (supra). 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C. can be dismissed with the observation that the petitioner can now appear before the learned Magistrate through his counsel and file application for exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. in terms of the decisions referred above. The mere fact that warrants of arrest have been issued will not justify refusal of the learned Magistrate to consider such application on merits. Crl.M.C.Nos. 8 & 12 of 2009 3 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued that the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 15.1.2009, on or before which date the petitioner can make necessary application for exemption through his counsel and the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on merits on such application without insisting on his personal presence to consider such application. 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm