IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3288 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.2680/2008 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------ RATHEESH.K.K., S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KARIMPUVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU.P.O., THEKKUMPADAM DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------- 1. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY LTD., THRISSUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VINOD.P.R. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3288 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2680/2008 of J.F.C.M., Muvattupuzha. The case was filed against him alleging offence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no summons was received by him and that was why he did not appear before the learned Magistrate. Now, the petitioner has come to know that the proceedings were initiated and NBW was issued against him. 2. The learned counsel submits that had he known that the summons had been sent to him, he would have certainly appeared before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel further submits that since NBW was issued, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate he will be remanded and so a direction may be issued to the Crl.M.C. No.3288 of 2011 -: 2 :- learned Magistrate to grant bail to the petitioner on the same date. It is only a case filed under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The cheque amount is only Rs.75,000/-. There is no reason to doubt the submission made by the learned counsel that it was only because the petitioner did not receive the summons, he could not appear before the learned Magistrate. In cases filed under Sec.138 of N.I.Act, it would not be proper to remand the accused, if he satisfies the court that his absence was not willful. Therefore, the accused need not have any apprehension that he will be remanded. Considering all the aspects, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of with a direction that the learned Magistrate will dispose of the bail application in accordance with law. The petitioner will surrender before the learned Magistrate at the earliest. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt