IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1139 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.2965/2009 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- DASAN.K.C., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KILITHURUTHIL (H), NEAR CHOICE SCHOOL, NJANAMTHURUTHIL PARAMBIL, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (ST NO.2965/2009 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1139 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in S.T.No.2965 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (for short, “the ACJM”) for offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). The Hill Palace Police has submitted a petty charge sheet against petitioner alleging that on 15.06.2009 at about 11 a.m. petitioner, standing near the East Fort uttered obscene words and caused annoyance to the public. Learned counsel contended that even if the entire allegations in the petty charge sheet are accepted, no offence punishable under Section 290 of the IPC is attracted. It is submitted that petitioner was regularly appearing in the court below but none of the prosecution witnesses were available. On 21.03.2011, on account of illness of his mother petitioner could not appear in court, nor his counsel could be informed. On that day learned ACJM issued non-bailable warrant to the petitioner. Hence petitioner requests to quash proceeding against him. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.Nos.1139/2011 2 2. The petty charge sheet was submitted some time in the year 2009. Petitioner was ready to face the trial. In such circumstances it is not necessary for this Court to quash the proceeding two years after submission of the petty charge sheet. If petitioner was appearing regularly and on 21.03.2011 alone petitioner was absent, it was not necessary that bail bond should have been cancelled. But I do not find any illegality in the learned ACJM cancelling the bail. In the circumstances I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to appear in the court below and seek regular bail. 3. Petitioner has an apprehension that if he appears before learned ACJM, he may be remanded to judicial custody. I do not find any circumstances for ordering judicial custody of petitioner since the case has already been taken on file and it is pending trial and hence any merit in that apprehension. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of granting two weeks time from this day to the petitioner to appear before learned ACJM and seek regular bail and recall of the warrant. If any such application for bail/recall of warrant is filed, learned ACJM shall dispose of the said applications as early as possible having regard to the fact that petitioner has been appearing in court and case was posted for trial and hence custody of the petitioner in the normal course is not required. In case petitioner is granted bail learned ACJM may Crl.M.C.Nos.1139/2011 3 also consider whether as before petitioner could be released on self bond having regard to the nature of offence alleged against him. Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will remain in abeyance during the said period of two weeks or till petitioner appears before the learned ACJM , whichever is earlier. Learned ACJM is directed to expedite disposal of the case. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks