IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN (LP.379/2009) ST.168/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------- G.MANOJ, GANGASADANAM, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------- 1. M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO.PVT. LTD., ROHAN BUILDINGS, KARUNAGAPPALLY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE M.G.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PANIKKAR, AYYAPPA JYOTHI, P.K.P.KAVALA, KUZHIMATHICADU P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2692 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in S.T.No.168 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam now pending as L.P.No.379/2009 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act challenges the order dated 11/6/2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioner before Court. The learned Magistrate expressed doubt by comparing the signature in the application filed by the petitioner as C.M.P.No.4360/2010 and the signature in the disputed cheque and acknowledgment card. 2. I do not think that notice should go to first respondent/complainant. 3. C.M.P.No.4360 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner pursuant to the permission granted by this Court while disposing of Criminal M.C.No.1188/2010 as evidenced by Annexure-3 order. There was no necessity for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to go behind the petition and express Crl.M.C.No.2692/2010 : 2 : doubt regarding the signatory of the petition. 4. In the light of the decision in Jain Babu Vs. Joseph 2008(4) KLT 16 the petitioner is exempted from personal appearance in S.T.No.168 of 2007 and the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner before him unless it is inevitable at any subsequent stage of the trial. This Criminal M.C. is allowed as above. Warrants issued against the petitioner shall stand re-called. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj