IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 122 of 2009() ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN LP 134/2004 IN CC.309/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- P.P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PROPRIETOR, MAS INTERNATIONAL TRAVELS, THIRUVENYAPPURA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. HARI MENON, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.SHEELA OFFICE AUTOMATION, PUTHUR ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.122 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2000 as is revealed from the number initially assigned to the case, ie. C.C.No.309 of 2000 (wrongly typed as C.C.No.309/2004 in this petition, it is submitted). The petitioner was not available for trial. He did not enter appearance. The case against him has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner finds such processes chasing him. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He is willing to take part in the proceedings. He prays that he may be permitted to appear through counsel to recall the case from the list of Long Pending Cases. He prays for permission to proceed with the trial after exempting him from his personal appearance. He prays that he may be granted the advantage of the decisions in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16] and Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 671]. 3. Leniency must also know its limits. The case has been initiated as early as in 2000. It was Crl.M.C. No.122 of 2009 2 transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases in 2004. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner must certainly be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and to seek regular bail. Thereafter, of course, he can apply for exemption from his personal appearance and the learned Magistrate must consider the said request on merits and in accordance with law. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks regular bail, the learned Magistrate must consider such application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself in the light of the decision in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 5. Thereafter if the petitioner applies for exemption from his personal appearance, the learned Magistrate must certainly consider such request on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-