IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3058 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.170/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- M.K. ABDULLA, S/O. ABOOBACKER RAMANTHALI AMSOM, VADAKUMBAD P.O. VADAKUMBAD, VIA. RAMANTHALI. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PAYYANNUR POLICE THORUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3058 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 341 and 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were six accused persons. Accused 1, 4 and 5 have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was enlarged on bail. But as he has to leave India in connection with his employment, he could not appear and take part in the trial. The prosecution against accused 2, 3 and 6 still remain. The petitioner has subsequently entered appearance. He has been enlarged on bail and he has returned to his place of employment abroad. 2. According to the petitioner he may not be available personally before the court below if the matter is taken up for trial early. This may entail further issue of coercive processes against him. In these circumstances sufficiently early he has come to this Court with a prayer that he may be permitted to be Crl.M.C.No. 3058 of 2008 2 represented by his counsel at the stage of trial after exempting him from personal appearance. He does not want to dispute his identity at all in the trial. 3. The request of the petitioner appears to me to be most legitimate. I have no reason to assume that such request will not be accepted by the learned Magistrate. Insistence on appearance of the accused before court on all dates of posting is not a fetish, but is required only to satisfy the requirement of law that evidence should be adduced only in the presence of the accused. On all other dates the accused can be permitted to be represented by his counsel. On dates on which evidence is to be adduced, if the accused applies to be represented by his counsel and he does not dispute his identity, I have no reason to assume that any Magistrate would insist on the personal presence of the accused. No Magistrate should do the same. Sufficient 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. It is for the petitioner/his counsel to apply before the learned Magistrate and seek exemption from personal appearance and to permit Crl.M.C.No. 3058 of 2008 3 the petitioner's counsel to conduct his case representing him without insistence on his personal presence. The learned Magistrate must consider such application in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary, as I find no reason why such application should not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and in accordance with law. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed subject to the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm