IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4242 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP.17/1998 IN CC.56/1989 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------------- K.J.ITOOP @ KOORAN ITTOOP VARGHESE, KOORAN HOUSE, NO.VI/539, MEKKAD.P.O, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, AIR CUSTOMS, AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4242 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the Customs Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 1989. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. All except two of the accused have already been tried and either found guilty and convicted or found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner is one of the two accused who have not faced trial so far. The case against the petitioner has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases in 1998. 2. At long last the law appears to be catching upon. Against the petitioner, proceedings under Secs.82 and 83 have been taken and evidently realising that he cannot play for further time, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. raising various claims and Crl.M.C. No. 4242 of 2008 -: 2 :- prayers. He prays that the petitioner may be permitted to appear through counsel before the court below and claim discharge. The 1st respondent has entered appearance through counsel. 3. In a case like this I do not find any reason, going by the nature of allegations or going by the sequence of events starting from 1989 to till this date, or justification in the prayer to enable the petitioner to claim discharge without personal appearance. The petitioner must certainly appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail. If he is granted bail, he can certainly pray that he may be exempted till his plea for discharge is considered on merits. That request can be made before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, needless to say, must take appropriate decision in the matter. Needless to say, the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on his surrender will have to be disposed of by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4242 of 2008 -: 3 :-