IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2551 of 2008() ------------------------- STC.810/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MANOJ KUMAR ,AGED 35 S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI ANNAVIL VEEDU, PONKUNNAM ,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2551 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He is the conductor of a public transport carriage and his co-accused is the driver of the vehicle. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that the bus, of with the accused are the driver and conductor respectively, was found proceeding along a route not authorised by the terms of the permit granted. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a petty case/charge sheet/complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittarickal police station who detected the offence. 2. The petitioner prays that the proceedings against him may be quashed. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits first of all that the route has not been violated. The vehicle was entitled to touch Cherupuzha and it was proceeding to Cherupuzha when the vehicle was intercepted by the police official. In these circumstances, on the face of it there is no substance in the allegation that any condition of the Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 2 permit has been violated. The precise allegation is that the vehicle which is supposed to proceed from Thaliparamba to Cherupuzha was found proceeding along the route Bhimanadi - Chittarickal towards Cherupuzha. I am unable to accept that the allegations on violations of the conditions of the permit is not justified and the prosecution is liable to be quashed for that reason. Secondly it is contended that it does not fall within the duty of the conductor to ensure that the vehicle proceeds along the route prescribed. On the face of it, I am afraid this contention cannot also be accepted. Certain other contentions are also raised. But I am not satisfied that the said contentions are sufficient to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am not adverting to those contentions in greater detail lest observations made by this court may fetter the discretions of the court below. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate consequent to his non appearance before the learned Magistrate. Trial has already commenced and in these circumstances the petitioner apprehends that his Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 3 application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously. He, therefore, prays that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail. 4. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. 5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 4 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. I make it clear that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the acceptability of the defence raised by the petitioner and the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.2551/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007