IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4855 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ST.78/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- A.VAHID, S/O.ABDUL REHUMAN KUNJU, KANNOOLIL, ERUVA.P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO.PVT. LTD., BANK ROAD, MUKKAVALA, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE P.D.MADHUKUMAR, S/O.DAMODAR ADDISSER, RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE, NEERAVIL, PERINAD.P.O., KOLLAM.698 261 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- Criminal M.C. No. 4855 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, accused in S.T.No.78/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Kollam filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 order, contending that the counsel for the complainant was not present when the case was taken up and cost as directed was infact paid and learned Magistrate recorded that cost not paid and issued non bailable warrant. It is contended that as cost was paid, learned Magistrate should not have issued non bailable warrant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel made available a copy of the memo showing that cost was received by the counsel who appeared for the complainant on 07.08.2010, the day on which Annexure-A1 order was passed. The learned counsel submitted, in such circumstances, the learned Criminal M.C. No. 4855 of 2010 2 Magistrate should have granted opportunity to the accused to cross examine the complainant as he has paid cost. 4. Annexure A1 order shows that, when the case was called, though the counsel for the petitioner was present, petitioner was absent. The order also shows that no application was filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure. In such circumstance, A1 order is legal. If cost was paid on 07.08.2010 as represented by the learned counsel, petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate to recall the non bailable warrant showing the reason for the absence of the petitioner on 07.08.2010, and cross examine the complainant. If such an application is filed, learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders. Petition is disposed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. rkc