IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 653 of 2008() ------------------------ C.C.NO.773/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ VEERAN T.P., S/O. T.P.KUTTIAN, THALAKKARA PUTHIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.653 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.773/2003 on the file of J.F.C.M, Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,447,427,506(i) read with Section 149 IPC, seeks permission to go abroad, to Saudi Arabia for a period of one year so as to re-join his place of employment. 2. The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by one Neelakandan in his capacity as the Secretary of the Chaliyil Purayi Cemetery Committee. There are altogether 25 accused persons in this case. The place of occurrence is a cemetery which belongs to five families who belong to the scheduled caste. 3. According to the complainant, since the Police did not register any crime against the accused, he was constrained to approach the Magistrate with the above private complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 19.7.03. The trial of the case was dislocated on account of the petitioner going abroad in violation of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. His bail was subsequently cancelled and after Crl.M.C.No. 653 of 2008 2 coming back to India he obtained an order from the Sessions Court, Manjeri and surrendered before the trial court. It was taking into consideration this conduct of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was not inclined to exempt him from personal appearance. He then moved the learned Magistrate under Section 205 Cr.P.C. It was thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court to get permission to go abroad. 4. In as much as the petitioner has stated that he will not dispute the identity and the capacity of the prosecution witnesses to identify him if he is permitted to be represented through his counsel, I see no reason why the request of the petitioner could not be granted. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, provided if he files an affidavit before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to represent him through counsel during the further progress of the trial and also gives a written undertaking that he will not raise any question regarding identity or capacity of the prosecution witnesses to identify him correctly at any stage of the trial. In case similar applications are forthcoming Crl.M.C.No. 653 of 2008 3 from other accused in connection with this case, the learned Magistrate may consider the same also favourably so that this case (which was filed in the year 2003) in which there are as many as 25 accused persons, can be disposed of without much delay. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj