IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2943 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.18/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ABDUL AZEEZ.K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAVARAN, KOLAKKADU THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S APOORVA BAKERS & CONFECTIONERS, 5/3422, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS NOMINEE ABDUL AZEES.K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAVARAN, KOLAKKAD THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF CALICUT, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2943 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. They are accused 2 and 3. Accused No.1 has already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioners were not available for trial along with the 1st accused. Reckoning them as absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes. The 2nd accused is an individual and the 3rd accused is an establishment represented by the 2nd accused. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate; but was on account of reasons beyond their control. The Crl.M.C. No. 2943 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners apprehend that their applications for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear before the learned Magistrate. 3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to Crl.M.C. No. 2943 of 2008 -: 3 :- the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/