IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3153 of 2008() ------------------------- LP.133/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SHABEER, MANGULAM HOUSE MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. INDUS MOTOR CO. LTD., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ASST. FINANCE MANAGER. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3153 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 1999. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against him. The petitioner finds such processes issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him. 2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent. His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 3. It is certainly 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 have no reason to assume that the learned Crl.M.C.No. 3153 of 2008 2 Sessions Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Eventhough in the petition a claim is made for quashing the proceedings, in the course of discussions at the Bar, that relief is not pressed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm