IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5923 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.S.ANANTHARAMAN, S/O.T.P.SEETHARAMAYYAR CHAIRMAN, PENINSULAV CAPITAL ,MARKET LTD S.T.REDDIAR & SONS BUILDINGS, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KOCHI-35. 2. P.J.LEONS, FORMER DIRECTOR DO..DO... BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.A.K.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, PAYYANNUR AMSOM,COURT ROAD PAYYANNUR PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 5923 OF 2008 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The short grievance of the petitioners in this case is that notwithstanding Ext.P2 common order passed by this Court, the learned Magistrate has not heard the petitioners' plea for discharge under section 239/240 Cr.P.C. 2. Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The report dated 21.2.08 submitted by the learned Magistrate reveals that both sides were heard in the matter and a decision has been taken to frame the charges. The case stands posted to 3.3.08, it is submitted. Along with the report of the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has forwarded a copy of the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate which gives the sequence of events that took place after 3.10.07, the date on which Ext.P2 order was passed. WPC.5923/08 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a careful reading of the proceedings paper does not at all reveal that there was any specific posting for hearing on the question of framing charge. The hearing under section 239/240 Cr.P.C. cannot be an empty formality. The accused is entitled to advance his arguments to facilitate premature termination of the proceedings against him. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order sheet maintained, a copy of which has been forwarded to this Court by the learned Magistrate, does not show that there was any specific posting or hearing on the question of framing charge. The order sheet dated 26.12.07 reads as follows: “ A4 present. A1, 2 absent represented. No application. No instruction for A3. NBW of A3 returned unexecuted. Issue steps u/s.82, 83 Cr.P.C. to A3. Case against A3 is split up, proceed with remaining accused. For framing charge to 27.12.07. For return of steps of A3 to 31.1.08. “ WPC.5923/08 : 3 : 4. The noting made above by the learned Magistrate does not show that there was any detailed hearing on the question of framing charge though the order shows that the case was posted for framing charges to 27.12.07. 5. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The learned Magistrate shall post the case specifically for hearing on the question of framing charge/ discharge under section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioners shall be heard and appropriate decision shall be taken in the matter. Until such decision is taken, it is directed that the personal presence of the petitioners need not be insisted and they shall be permitted to be represented by their counsel for such hearing. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks