IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DECEMBER 2010 / 7TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5087 of 2010() ------------------------- (C.C. NO.30/1997 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) ERNAKULAM) PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3 --------------- K.V.ISMAIL, S/O.KUNHIMAHIN HAJI KINAKKOOL, VAYALAPPATHIL VEEDU IRIKKOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SPECIAL CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31. P.P. SMT. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/12/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.5088/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------ Crl.M.C.Nos. 5087 & 5088 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Since both these petitions are filed seeking the same relief, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C. Nos.30/1997 & 120/1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. In both these cases, the petitioner alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act. 3. It is stated that after the complaint was filed, a Preventive Detention Order was issued against the petitioner on 26/11/1992. Hence, the petitioner could not come down to attend the case. Later, Government of India had revoked the order of preventive detention against the petitioner by order dated 28/7/2010. Unfortunately, the case against the petitioner was split up. Now the petitioner wants to appear before the court and face the trial. According to the petitioner, non appearance on the part of the petitioner was not at all willful Crl.M.C,NO. 5087 & 5088/2010 -2- and was due to reasons beyond his control. As a result of his absence, a non bailable warrant was issued against him and it is pending execution. 4. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court and this Court issued a direction to surrender before the court below within a period of one month. However, the petitioner could not surrender because in the meanwhile he was hospitalised, so submits the petitioner. 5. The petitioner now wants to participate in the trial of the case. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a direction to the A.C.J.M(E.O), Ernakulam to recall the non bailable warrant pending against him and he may not be remanded to custody on his surrender before that Court. The prayer cannot be entertained. The reasons given for recalling the warrant are not convincing enough. There will be a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(Economic Offences), Ernakulam, that in case the petitioner surrenders before the said Court and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered on the same day itself , as far as possible, after issuing notice to the Pubic Crl.M.C,NO. 5087 & 5088/2010 -3- Prosecutor concerned. It is also observed that the application may be considered liberally. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. dpk