IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 879 of 2010 -------------------------------- [CMP.4712/2009 IN CC.NO.629/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. DR.V.K.SIVADAS,S/O.CHANDRASEKARAN, AGED 37 YEARS,ROSE GARDEN, P.V.S.PARK, KOTOOLI, KOZHIKODE. 2. DR.PRASANTH BALAN,S/O.N.BALAN,AGED 33 YEARS,PAVITHRAM,POOZHIYIL ROAD,WEST HILL CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.E.K.KRISHNA VARMA RAJA, AGED 50 YEARS,KRISHNA VILAS, KALLACHI POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.G.B.SHAMJITH, MR.JIJI THOMAS. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.879 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.629/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing C.M.P.4712/2009 filed by third accused under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As the petitioners did not produce copy of C.M.P.4712/2009, petitioner was directed to produce the same. Petitioners produced Annexure-C copy of petition, with affidavit. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Crmc 879/10 2 Prosecutor were heard. 3. When the appearance of the accused sought to be dispensed at the time of trial under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused must undertake that he will not dispute his identity and that at the time of recording the evidence on his behalf his counsel will appear and evidence could be recorded treating the presence of the counsel as his presence and that he will not challenge the evidence so recorded before that court or the appellate court or the revisional court. I find that the affidavit filed along with Annexure-C application, does not contain these mandatory averments. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure-B order. 4. Learned counsel submitted that Crmc 879/10 3 petitioner may be permitted to file a proper application. If the petitioner files a proper application, it is for the learned Magistrate to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and Annexure-B order will not be a bar. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.