IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2630 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.68/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BALAN, S/O. PAPPU, MURUKAVILASAM, KANJIRAPPARA, KOKKATHODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2630 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. The petitioner was not arrested at the crime stage. He had received summons from the learned Magistrate. He had appeared before court through a counsel and had applied for time to appear. That application is allowed and the case now stands posted to 28/7/08. 2. The petitioner apprehends that when he enters appearance and applies for bail, his application for bail may be rejected and he may be remanded to custody. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the directions under Crl.M.C. No. 2630 of 2008 -: 2 :- Sec.482Cr.P.C. may be issued to consider his application for bail, on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and favourably. The petitioner apprehends that this may not be done by the learned Magistrate as the offence is one exclusively triable by a Court of Session. 3. I must alertly note that the mere fact that the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions does not ipso facto justify abdication of the jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate under Sec.437 Cr.P.C. I must further note that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the discretion under Sec.204 Cr.P.C. appears to have been exercised by the learned Magistrate to issue only a summons and not a warrant. Sufficient general directions on this aspect. have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) which hold the field now. 4. in these circumstances, I am not satisfied that any special or specific direction deserves to be issued. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I need only mention that his application for regular Crl.M.C. No. 2630 of 2008 -: 3 :- bail must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously in the light of the decisions in Alice George and Sukumari indicated above. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge