IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2579 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 520/08 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SOJI P. VARGHESE, D/O. P.V. VARGHESE PUNNAKULAM HOUSE, VADAKKUMANNAM MANNARKAD, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2579 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused and she faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All other offences are bailable. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner she is absolutely innocent. Allegations are raised vexatiously. She is willing to co-operate with the investigators and appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. She apprehends that her application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Her apprehension is founded on the fact that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is triable exclusively by a court of Sessions. She cannot move Crl.M.C.No. 2579 of 2008 2 the superior Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . Facing this dilemma the petitioner has come to this Court praying for appropriate directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I have considered the submissions made. I find the apprehension of the petitioner to be totally unjustified. The mere fact that an offence under SC/ST Act is triable by a Court of Sessions will not justify abdication of jurisdiction by the learned Magistrates under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The decisions in Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 42) and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 250) make the position very clear. It is for the petitioners now to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the applications to be filed by them on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient Crl.M.C.No. 2579 of 2008 3 general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself in the light of the precedents referred above. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm