IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1085 of 2010() ------------------------------------- ST.558/2008 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RAMANKARY .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JACOB THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MULAMOOTTIL LEASING & HP.LTD., MARKET ROAD, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. MR.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, GRADE-II, MANCOMPU, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1085 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 29th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.558/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary taken cognizance for the offence under Section 29 (3) (b) of Kerala shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken or in the alternative to dispense with his personal appearance throughout the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that Crmc 1085/10 2 as a non bailable warrant is pending, after rejecting Annexure-2 petition filed under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Annexure-3 order, learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the application for bail as well as the application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure afresh, as sentence provided for the offence is only fine. 4. Annexure-4 order sheet of the Magistrate shows that though petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate on 29/8/2009 and the case was being posted for appearance of the petitioner, it was being adjourned as the petitioner was absent and he was represented by the counsel. It is clear that even though petitioner was being represented, his counsel was absent and another counsel was representing that counsel. The Crmc 1085/10 3 petition under Section 205 was were filed not by the petitioner but by the counsel seeking permission to represent the petitioner and to conduct the case in his absence. As the petition under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed not by the party but by the counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed on 28/1/2010. But considering the fact that sentence provided for the offence is only fine, I find no reason for the Magistrate to refuse to grant exemption under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if a proper application is filed by the party. In such circumstances, petition is disposed directing the Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law if a proper application is filed by the Crmc 1085/10 4 party under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure ignoring Annexure-3 order. If petitioner 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 the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this court or the Apex court or that the Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. In such circumstances, no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.