IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 439 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.321/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... (CRIME NO.160/2009 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ RIGIL, AGED 22, S/O.GEORGE, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KANNOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN.E., SRI.U.R.HARSHAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION - 686 631. 3. K.C. JOHN, H.C. 5153, GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 631. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.439 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.321 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor which arose from Crime No.160 of 2009 of Ettumanoor Police Station for offence punishable under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Charge is that while in lawful custody of court, petitioner escaped from such custody. Case was posted for trial and on 10.11.2010, as petitioner and counsel were absent and as there was no representation bail bond executed by the petitioner was cancelled and non-bailable warrant was issued to him. Learned counsel contends that no offence as alleged is made out, learned Magistrate was not correct in canceling bail and the learned Magistrate forget the cardinal rule that nobody could be a judge of his own cause. 2. Case against petitioner is that he, as accused No.4 in S.T.No.2397 of 2008 of the same court was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and pay fine of `.100/- on 30.03.2009. At about 2.45 p.m. that day, petitioner is alleged to have escaped from the custody of court which was noticed by respondent No.3, a Police Constable on court duty. He filed a report to that effect before the learned Magistrate. On 31.03.2009 learned Magistrate forwarded that report to the Police for Crl.MC .No.439/2011 2 investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Police registered Crime No.160 of 2009, investigated and submitted final report alleging commission of offence under Section 225B of the Code which the learned Magistrate took cognizance, issued process to the petitioner and filed C.C.No.321 of 2009. 3. Having regard to the allegations contained in Annexure-A1, report given by the third respondent, Police Constable on court duty and the materials produced before me I am unable to accept the contention that no offence is made out so that learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence . I am also not impressed by the contention that the learned Magistrate could not have tried the case, for, it is not as if learned Magistrate has given a complaint based on which the crime was registered. Learned Magistrate has only forwarded for investigation report submitted by the Police Constable on duty. It would appear from this petition that learned Magistrate had expressed the opinion that it is open to the petitioner to seek transfer of the case if petitioner so wished. But, petitioner did not think it necessary to do so. If that be so, if the case is not transferred to another court there is nothing wrong in the learned Magistrate trying the case. Crl.MC .No.439/2011 3 4. So far as non-appearance of petitioner on 10.11.2010 is concerned, according to the petitioner he was to attend the final year LLB examination on that day and hence he did not appear in court. If that be so he should have been represented by counsel and sought exemption from personal appearance. That was not done. Consequence was cancellation of the bail. There is nothing illegal in it. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks