IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 535 of 2009() ------------------------ ST.454/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- LEANS EXPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, XAVIER D'CRUZ, VALIYATHURA H.NO.44/614, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.JOSE REFRIGERATION KADUTHURUTHY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JOSE, S/O.KORAH, KADUTHURUTHY.PO., KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.535 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2003 and the matter is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom as S.T.No.452 of 2008. 2. According to the petitioner, he is already on bail. He was represented by a counsel. On some dates of posting the petitioner could not appear and he applied for condonation of his absence. The applications filed through his counsel were rejected and non bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. According to the petitioner on all dates of posting, the petitioner was represented by his counsel and applications were filed to excuse his absence. The bail bond has not been cancelled also. In these circumstances the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to participate in the proceedings through his counsel. 4. It is for the petitioner, if the above submissions are correct, to appear before the learned Magistrate and make appropriate applications to permit him to continue on bail and Crl.M.C. No.535 of 2009 2 allow him to be represented by his counsel. If the bail bond has not been cancelled and the counsel has been appearing all along for the petitioner, I find no reason why the learned Magistrate should not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioner can certainly claim the advantage of the dicta in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16] and Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 671]. Such applications to be filed by the petitioner must be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate orders passed. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. In as much as it is represented that the petitioner has always been represented by his counsel, there shall be a direction that coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 16.02.09. On or before that date the petitioner can appear through his counsel and make the necessary applications. Needless to say, such applications must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-