IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3944 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/06/2009 IN CRMP 3924/2009 IN CC.771/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVN.PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------------------------ SURENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, MANNIL KOIKKAL HOUSE, CHAINAMUKKU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3944 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.771 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta. He is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) and read with Section 34 I.P.C. He filed a petition seeking an order of exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned magistrate by order dated 8/6/2009 dismissed the petition. Now this revision petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the order impugned it appears that the petition filed before the lower court was not with requisite averments, to the effect that the revision petitioner would not dispute his identity as the accused in that case and that there would be a lawyer, who is authorised to give statements on his behalf, representing him during the course of the trial and that such statement given by the lawyer should not be disputed and that he would not dispute the evidence taken in his absence etc. In the above circumstance, I find that the learned magistrate Crl.R.P.No.3944 of 2009 2 was correct in dismissing the petition. The revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh with requisite statements and undertakings which shall be duly disposed by the magistrate untrammeled by the observations in the order impugned. The learned magistrate shall not insist his presence till such petition, if any so filed is disposed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj