IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 371 of 2010() (CC NO.64/98 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------- SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU, S/O.C.V.JOSEPH, ESTATE BUNGALOW, PADAGIRI, NELLIAMPATHY. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NELLIAMPATHY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PP SRI.S U NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC 372/10, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Cr. MC Nos.371 & 372 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd February 2010 Order These two petitions have common issues to be decided. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in CC Nos.63/98 and 64/98 before the JFCM Court, Alathur for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.27(4)(b) and 27(1)(e)(III)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. It is unnecessary to go into the allegations in detail, in view of the fact that these petitions can be disposed of on a short ground. 3. The petitioner could not stand trial along with the other accused persons and therefore, the cases against him were split up and refiled. He has given the details of all the four cases in which he is the accused, in these petitions. 4. The petitioner claims to be a Non-Resident-Indian and businessman. He submits that he will always be on tour and he is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the estate. Therefore, he is totally innocent, it is submitted. It is pointed out CRMC 371 & 372/10 2 by the petitioner that he had filed Criminal MC Nos.4223/05 and 4406/05 before this Court, praying to quash the proceedings in CC Nos.63/98 and 534/98. Those petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 24.10.2007, which is produced as Annexure-II. The petitioner also pointed out that in both these cases, he approached the learned Magistrate after passing Annexure II order, by filing an application under S.245(2) of the Cr.P.C., claiming discharge. The said petition has been produced as Annexure-IV. The petitioner had also filed an application under S.205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal appearance, which is produced as Annexure V. He pointed out that all the other accused in the connected cases, tried by the Magistrate's Court, have been acquitted and since he was not available for trial, cases against him were split up and re-filed. 5. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of his petitions for discharge and for dispensing with his personal appearance, proceedings under S.82 Cr.PC have been resorted to in both these cases. It is pointed out by him that without considering the above petitions, the proceedings under S.82 Cr.PC ought not have been resorted to. CRMC 371 & 372/10 3 6. The limited prayer of the petitioner in these petitions is that until and unless his petitions for discharge and for dispensing with his personal appearance, are considered, further proceedings pursuant to Annexure VI orders, i.e., proceedings under S.82 Cr.P.C. may be kept in abeyance. 7. The above said prayer of the petitioner seems to be just and reasonable. The Court below should first consider the petitions filed by the petitioner for discharge and for dispensing with his personal appearance and only thereafter, proceedings under S.82 Cr.PC can be resorted to. Therefore, these petitions are allowed to the limited extent that the Court below shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioner for discharge and for dispensing with his personal appearance and only thereafter, the Court shall resort to proceed under S.82 Cr.PC. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRMC 371 & 372/10 4 CRMC 371 & 372/10 5