IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2338 of 2009 ------------------------------- CC.218/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA ......................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOMON JOHN, JOSE HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA,MULLACKAL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA,REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VINOD B. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2338 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in CC No.218/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. Second respondent is the complainant. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After closing the prosecution evidence, petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was posted for defence evidence. According to the petitioner, when the case was posted on 18.05.09, due to the mistake committed by the clerk in noting the date as 20.05.09 he and his counsel did not appear and the learned Magistrate under Annexure-A3 order cancelled the bail and issued non-bailable warrant and also notice to the sureties. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 2. After petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and posted for defence evidence he was absent. The learned Magistrate cancelled the bail and issued Crl.M.C:2338/09 -:2:- non-bailable warrant to the petitioner and notice to the sureties. When a non-bailable warrant is issued, remedy of the petitioner is to file an application before the Magistrate to recall the warrant and to grant him bail. If the petitioner files an application to recall the warrant and to consider the same bond, learned Magistrate to consider that application and pass orders, in accordance with law, without delay. I find no reason to believe that in the circumstances of the case, for the sole reason that petitioner and his counsel did not appear on a day posted for defence evidence, the learned Magistrate will not allow such an application. Petition is disposed of. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ttb