IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3348 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.97/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ABILASH BERLY, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT, STATE AND COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. R.RAJAPPAN, DYES CHEMICALS & JUTE MERCHANT, POOMKAVU JUNCTION, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3348 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was dismissed and he was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The complainant preferred an appeal and in that appeal, the order of acquittal was set aside. The matter was remanded to the court below to continue the proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner has not entered appearance. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner. Such processes are chasing the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. His absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He had no notice of the proceedings before the High Court of the setting aside of the order of acquittal. It is, in these circumstances, he could not appear before the learned Magistrate. He is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate and participate in the trial. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not Crl.M.C. No.3348 of 2008 2 be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 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 he 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]. 4. This Crl.M.C is, 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. Crl.M.C. No.3348 of 2008 3 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 16.09.08. On or before that date, the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-