IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 9 of 2011() ---------------------- ST.1481/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE , KOLENCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------- 1. M/S.ME POLYMERS (P) LTD. KINFRA SLIP, NELLAD PO,MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. MRS. P.D.SHAMEEMA, W/O.P.P.UVAIS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. M/S.ME POLYMERS (P) LTD. EP, V/483, MAYFILED, EDATHALA NORTH PO,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S)/(COMPLAINANT AND STATE): --------------- 1. ESI CORPORATION,MALU'S COMPLEX ST.FRANCIS CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR COCHIN 682 017, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.9 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER Accused in S.T.No.1481 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery are the petitioners before me. They are accused of offence punishable under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”). According to the petitioners (petitioner No.2 is a pardhanishin lady) offence attributed to them is bailable since punishment provided for the said offence under the Act is only imprisonment which may extent to one year or with fine which may extent to `.4,000/- or, with both. Petitioners appeared through counsel in the court below on 07.08.2010. Case was then posted on 22.10.2010, 13.12.2010 and on 17.12.2010. On that day learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant to petitioner No.2. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”) praying that learned Magistrate may be directed to recall the non- bailable warrant issued to petitioner No.2 and order disposal of the case granting exemption from personal appearance of petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are willing to plead guilty of the offence attributed to them and that since the offence is bailable it is open to the petitioners to appear through counsel and plead guilty. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) KLT 16). Crl.M.C.No.9/2011 2 2. I have heard learned counsel and the Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. In the nature of punishment provided under Section 85(g) of the Act and going through Schedule II of the Code, it appears to me that the offence attributed to the petitioners is bailable in nature. Under Section 205 of the Code, the Magistrate is authorised to grant exemption from personal attendance and permit the accused to appear through counsel. Admittedly petitioners were being represented by counsel in the court below. In the circumstance, issue of non-bailable warrant was not required. Since learned counsel has expressed willingness of petitioners to plead guilty, it is open to them to request the learned Magistrate to dispense personal attendance under Section 205 of the Code and request to record their plea through counsel. The decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph supports that view. There it has been held (in relation to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) that plea of the accused exempted under Section 205 of the Code can be recorded through his counsel. There is no reason why that decision should not be applied to the facts of this case. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. Non-bailable warrant issued to petitioner No.2 is set aside. Crl.M.C.No.9/2011 3 ii. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to request the learned Magistrate to dispense with their personal attendance and allow them to appear through counsel and plead guilty as provided under Section 205 of the Code and as explained by this Court in Jain Babu v. Joseph. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks