IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 191 of 2009() ------------------------ S.T.NO.1353 OF 2007 OF J.F.M.C, ALATHUR PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.VASUDEVAN, KOLLAYILVEEDU, THIRUVEGAPURA, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.191 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was initially pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. Later it was transferred to the J.M.F.C, Alathur. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the learned C.J.M, Palakkad as per order dated 14.07.06. It was later that the case was transferred to the J.M.F.C, Alathur. The petitioner was represented by a counsel. But on 12.01.09, the counsel for the petitioner omitted to represent the case of the petitioner and thereupon the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes against the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He apprehends that he may be arrested. He further apprehends that when he surrenders, fresh bail bond may be insisted by the learned Magistrate. 3. The petitioner is already on bail. It is submitted that there was omission on the part of his counsel to represent him on one particular date. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied Crl.M.C. No.191 of 2009 2 that the petitioner can be given opportunity to appear through his counsel before the court below and apply for exemption for appearance in the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16]. The bond executed already shall continue to remain in force and the learned Magistrate can now consider the application for exemption from appearance. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed and the following directions are issued: i) The coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 24.01.09; ii) On or before that date, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate through counsel and apply for exemption from personal appearance in the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-