IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 422 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.172/2007 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- MUHAMMED SALI, S/O MOOSA, AGED 29 YEARS, MAMBALLI HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR, ERANJEENTEKEEZHIL, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,(S.H.O.KOLAVALLOOR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 422 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 30-01-2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in Crime No. 60 of 2005 of Kolavalloor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and whose case namely C.C. No. 269 of 2005 was split up and refiled as C.C. No. 172 of 2007 , seeks a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to permit the petitioner to proceed with the trial of C.C. No. 172 of 2007 in absentia by permitting his counsel to represent him and to keep in abeyance Annexure A3 order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner and issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and notice to the sureties. At a time when he was absconding on account of his employment abroad, he appeared before the Court and the case was re-numbered as C.C. 172 of 2007. He was enlarged on bail. On 5-09-2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. Consequent on his pleading not guilty to the charge the case was provisionally posted for trial on 25-9-2007 on which date also the Crl.M.C. No. 422 of 2008 -:2:- petitioner appeared before the Court. But, as he was employed abroad he had no option other than to go abroad. When the case was subsequently posted for prosecution evidence on 27-11-2007 the de facto complainant (CW1) was absent and the other witnesses CWs 2 to 5 were present. On behalf of the petitioner an application was filed to permit him to be represented by his counsel and to excuse his absence as he was abroad. It was also made clear that he would not raise any dispute regarding identity. That application was rejected and the petitioner's bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued and notice to sureties was also issued as per Annexure A3 order. Hence, this Crl.M.C. 2. Since the petitioner had specifically made it clear that he would not raise any dispute regarding identity and had requested the Magistrate to permit him to be represented by his counsel with a view to getting along with the trial of the case, there was no need to reject his application and cancel his bail and issue coercive steps against him. I, therefore, do not find any justification on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in passing Annexure III order on 27-11-2007 in C.C. 172 of 2007. The said order shall remain suspended and the petitioner shall appear through his counsel before the next day of posting on which prosecution witnesses are summoned. The learned Crl.M.C. No. 422 of 2008 -:3:- Magistrate shall permit the petitioner to be represented through his counsel and to proceed with the trial of the case in the absence of the petitioner. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not entitled to raise any dispute regarding the ability or capacity of the prosecution witnesses to identify him. Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.