IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 472 of 2008() ------------------------ ST.45/1995 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS: 7TH AND 12TH ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. K.N.PRAKASH, RAVISADANAM MANAKKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA 2. M/S. NAMBOODIRI'S PICKLE INDUSTRIES THODUPUZHA, REP. BY K.N.PRAKASH. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 472 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused Nos.7 and 12 in ST No.45 of 1995 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam in a prosecution under the PFA Act, 1954. The 12th accused is the manufacturing concern of the pickle in question and the 7th accused is the person who represents the 12th accused. The petitioners were on bail during the trial of the case and the case was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313(1) (b) CrPC. According to the petitioners, a short adjournment was sought, but, their request was rejected and the bail bond was cancelled and warrant was issued to the petitioners and notice was issued to the sureties. The petitioners are challenging the order passed on Annexure A2 petition seeking adjournment of the case. In Annexure A2 petition it was stated that the 7th accused has gone abroad in connection with his business and he is therefore unable to attend the court on that day. In the fitness of the case the Chief Judicial Magistrate could have allowed the said application and adjourned the case to another date to enable the CrlMC No. 472 of 2008 2 petitioner to continue to participate in the trial of the case. In the alternative the court below could have permitted the petitioner's counsel to represent him during the 313 examination. Hence the order passed on Annexure A2 petition is set aside and the petitioners shall be deemed to be on bail on the strength of the earlier orders passed by the court. The petitioners are permitted to appear through their counsel for the examination under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC for which purpose the Magistrate shall not insist on their personal appearance. However, this benefit shall not be available to them during the subsequent stages of the trial. The Crl.MC is allowed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE btt CrlMC No. 472 of 2008 3