IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4007 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CMP. 1576/2007 IN ST. NO.460/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COUER VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/ ACUSED NOS. 1 TO 6 ----------------------- 1. AIR LINK INDIA LTD., VAIBAV COMPLES, 3 R.D., FLOOR 41EE ROAD, KOLKATTA 7000 020, REPB.Y ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND DY. REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN. 2. MR.SUNANDHAN RAY, PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR, AIR LINK, INDIA LTD., VAIBAV COMPLEX, 3 RD. FLOOR 41EE ROAD, KOLKATTA 700 020, REP.BY HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND DY.REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN. 3. MR.ARABINDA RAY, DIRECTOR, AIR LINK INDIA LTD., VAIBAV COMPLEX, 3 R.D. FLOOR 41EE ROAD, KOLKATTA 700 020 REP.BY HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND CY. REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN. 4. MR.SNEHASIS KABIRAJ, DIRECTOR, AIR LINK INDIA LTD., VAIBAV COMPLEX3 R.D. FLOOR 41EE ROAD, KOLKATTA 700 020, REP.BY HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND DY. REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN. 5. MR.SUDIPTO SARKAR, DIRECTOR, AIR LINK INDIA LTD., VAIBAV COMPLEX, 3 R.D. FLOOR 41 EE ROAD, KOLKATTA 7000 020, REP.BY HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND DY. REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN. 6. VINOD G.NAIR, DEPUTY REGIONAL MANAGER, AIR LINK INDIA LTD., HARBOUR VIEW, MILLE ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. MR.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, AMRITHA, T.C. 74/1507, PALKULANGARA DEVI TEMPLE, EAST NADA, PATTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4007 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their prayer to excuse their absence and for permission to be represented by counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that when the impugned order was passed, the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out to the court the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16] with particular reference to paragraph 29. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall be satisfied if the impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision in Jain Babu (Supra) with particular reference to paragraph 29. 2. I accept the fair request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. Crl.M.C.No.4007/08 2 b) The impugned order dated 26/9/2008 in C.M.P.No.1576/2007 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the said petition afresh in the light of the decision in Jain Babu (Supra) with particular reference to paragraph 29. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4007/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4007/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008