IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1926 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.342/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------- THAMARAKULAM RAVI, S/O. KESAVAN ACHARI, MINI BHAVAN, MANGARAM, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJATH ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1926 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was enlarged on bail. But later, on account of non appearance of the petitioner, a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner had come to this Court seeking directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Interim direction was issued on 14.06.2007 that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. The petitioner appears to have surrendered before the learned Magistrate and he appears to have been enlarged on bail. Though it was submitted before Court that the petitioner wants to argue certain questions of law about the impropriety of the use of the expression non bailable warrant in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner does not now appear to Crl.M.C. No.1926 of 2007 2 be interested in advancing those contentions. I am satisfied that in the light of the interim order dated 14.06.07, benefit of which order has already been availed by the petitioner, no further directions are necessary in the matter now. There is no representation for the petitioner today. 2. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-