IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 303 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------ ST. NO.503/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- MUHAMMED BASHEER, SOLO ARTS, ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, THAMMANAM ROAD, SAMSKARA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR. RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. M/S. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, KARIMPANAL ARCADE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY - SYAM KUMAR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI FOR R1, ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2. ADV. SRI. D. KISHORE (AMICUS CURIAE). THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.1260/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.303,309,310,311,312, 313,315,316,320,718,719,723, 724,725,726,727,728,729,730, 1239,1240,1242,1244,1253,1254, 1256,1257,1259,1260,1261,1262, 1264,1266,1267,1268,1269,1271, 1330,2546,2554,2556,2558,2559, 2561,2562,2564,2565,2566,2570, 2582,2588,2589,2590,2591,2592, 2593,2595 and 2598 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 O R D E R The common petitioner in these Crl.M.Cs assail separate orders passed in all these cases by the learned Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C directing cognizance be taken against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All these criminal prosecutions are initiated by the same common complainant against the petitioner herein. There was one more case between the same parties and identical challenge in respect of one of such cases - S.T.No.527 of 2007 of J.F.C.M-III, Thiruvananthapuram has been considered and disposed of by an earlier order passed today in Crl.M.C.No.292/2008. This common order must be read in continuation of that order. Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 2 2. Cognizance taken is assailed on the ground that no enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C has been conducted by the learned Magistrate though the petitioners/accused does not reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. I have already taken the view in Crl.M.C.No.292/2008 that it is not invariable that in every such case the Magistrate must proceed to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C even when the indictee hails from an area outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The crucial question is whether the requisite satisfaction can be entertained by the Magistrate on the basis of the materials made available before him. In all these cases the averments in the complaint considered in the light of the documents produced as also the affidavit of the complainant filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C to satisfy the requirement of examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C are, according to me, absolutely sufficient to entertain the requisite satisfaction that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. I have dealt with identical challenge in detail in the order passed in Crl.M.C.No.292/2008. Same reasons apply in these cases also. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the challenge raised in all these Crl.M.Cs does not deserve to be Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 3 upheld and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve to be invoked to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner which is challenged in these Crl.M.Cs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file an application under the proviso to Section 218(1) Cr.P.C requesting the Magistrate for a direction that the allegations in all these cases including the allegation in S.T.No.527/2007 be considered in a common trial. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent also can and does have no objection whatsoever against such procedure to be followed which would contribute to expeditious disposal of the cases and also avoidable repetition of unnecessary non- productive work of the court and the counsel. If the petitioner makes such an application under the proviso to Section 218(1) Cr.P.C the learned Magistrate must consider such application on merits and pass appropriate orders. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that there are as many as fifty nine cases filed against the petitioner by the same complainant raising identical allegations and if personal presence of the petitioner were not dispensed with and the petitioner were not permitted to be represented by Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 4 a counsel, unnecessary hardship, difficulties and inconvenience will have to be suffered by the petitioner. 5. I am satisfied that the petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate and after his plea is recorded make an application for exemption. The learned Magistrate, I have no reason to assume, shall insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner on all dates of trial. The petitioner can make appropriate application and the learned Magistrate must consider such application and pass appropriate orders. 6. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the same set of sureties were not accepted in all the fifty nine cases, that would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. The petitioner can make a request to the learned Magistrate on that aspect also and I find no reason why the learned Magistrate should not accept the same. 7. With the above observations, these Crl.M.Cs are dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 5 Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008