IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3934 of 2009() ------------------------------------ ST.486/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- K.V. RAJAN, SNEHA BHAVAN, ULLANNOOR, VIA KULANADA, PANDALAM, JRS EXPORT AND IMPORT, AL SEENIYA BUILDING, ULLANNOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. POLICE STATION. BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. NAGARJUNA HERBAL CONCENTRATED LTD., REPRESENTED BY MR.BINU JOSE, LEGAL OFFICER, NAGARJUNA HERBAL CONCENTRATED LTD., KALAYANTHANI, THODUPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC. NO.3935 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.3934,3935,3936 &3940 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of December,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in S.T.486/2008, 485/2008,483/2008 & 487/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha taken cognizance for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaints filed by the second respondent. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that there was no service of notice, as provided under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act and petitioner is not in India and is admittedly in West Indies and in such circumstance learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that second respondent did not produce any material to prove that he had sent notice to the petitioner to his West Indies address and in the absence of materials to prove Crl.M.C.3934,3935,3936 & 3940 of 2009 2 that notice was personally served on the petitioner, no offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted. 4. The question whether petitioner has been served with a notice and whether the notice returned evidenced by the acknowledgement card produced along with the complaint, are sufficient to attract an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are matters to be considered by the Magistrate at the time of trial. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a direction be issued to the Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on the date of his surrender. 5. When an accused surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate will not grant bail, to an accused when the offence alleged is only under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petitions are disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions raised in the petition before the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- Crl.M.C.3934,3935,3936 & 3940 of 2009 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006