IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 188 of 2009() ------------------------ ST.409/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------- KUMARY R.K.BEENA R.K./SADANAM, RAILWAY STATION JUNCITON MAVELIKKARA, NOW WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------- 1. SREEKALA SARADAVILASAM, THOSHUKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, POIN 695 121. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.189 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.188 & 189 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in 2 separate prosecutions, both under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. In one case from 11.01.2008 and in the other from 29.07.08, the petitioner has not been appearing before the learned Magistrate. She was earlier represented by a counsel, but it is seen that the counsel had not appeared on her behalf after those dates. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. As the learned Magistrate was not able to procure the presence of the petitioner and was obviously apprised of the fact that the petitioner was attending her office, the learned Magistrate, in his anxiety to secure the presence of the petitioner, appears to have directed her superior officer to relieve her from duty and posted the case to 15.01.09. Crl.M.C. No.188 of 2009 2 2. According to the petitioner, she is absolutely innocent. Her absence was not wilful or deliberate. She had engaged a counsel. She is not responsible for the failure/omission of the counsel to appear on the dates of posting. She is willing now to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. But she apprehends that her application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously-on the date of surrender itself. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which she could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application 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 in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. Crl.M.C. No.188 of 2009 3 4. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. 5. Objection is raised against the direction issued to the District Registrar to relieve the petitioner from duty on 15.01.09. It is submitted that this virtually amounts to a direction to keep the petitioner under suspension. I am unable to read any such inference from such a direction. The direction was issued to the District Registrar only to inform the petitioner of her obligation to appear before the court and to relieve her from duty on that day. I am unable to understand how the said direction can be considered as a direction by the Court to keep the petitioner under suspension. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-