IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4151 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.85/2008 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTGRATE COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. JITHIN SANKAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SANKAR, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR S.N.V.SADANAM, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. FAIZAL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, NARIPPARAYIL HOUSE, NADAKKAL, ERATTUPETTA. 3. SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PULIKKIYIL, NADAKKAL, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANDHINAGAR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4151 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C No.85/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor taken cognizance for the offence under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 7 of L.P.G (Regulation of Supply of Distribution Act (Order 2000). Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. It is not disputed that learned Magistrate has framed charge for the offences and petitioners did not challenge either the cognizance taken originally or the order framing charge. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason for this Court to quash the proceedings as sought for at this belated stage. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Crl.M.C No.4151 of 2010 2 Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel then submitted that as the case was posted on a day when the President visited, due to traffic regulations, petitioners could not appear before the learned Magistrate and consequently there was an order cancelling the bail and a non-bailable warrant is pending and hence a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail on the date of filing of the petition. 6. If the petitioners could not appear on the day, on which the bail was cancelled, on account of the traffic regulations, as canvassed by the learned counsel, I find no reason why the learned Magistrate will not recall the non- bailable warrant issued against the petitioners. It is up to the petitioners to satisfy the learned Magistrate that their absence before the court was not willful. When a petition for recalling the non-bailable warrant or for bail is filed by the accused, learned Magistrate is expected to pass orders on the application, without delay. I find no reason to believe that the learned Magistrate is unaware of the Crl.M.C No.4151 of 2010 3 provisions of law or the decisions of the court or the learned Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE ma