Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.T. JOSEPH versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.T. JOSEPH v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 3966 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2545 (5 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3966 of 2006()

1. M.T. JOSEPH, MYALIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.DAISY THAMPI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :05/12/2006

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NO.3966 OF 2006

Dated this the 5th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 11th accused in a prosecution inter alia under Sections 283 & 188 read with 149 I.P.C. He is aged 63 years. According to him, he was always available at his house and was never absconding. The petitioner was never informed that a case has been registered against him and his presence is required before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has now come to realise that a proclamation has been issued by the learned Magistrate to secure his presence. The petitioner has rushed to this Court with this Crl.M.C apprehending that if he surrenders before the learned Magistrate, his application for bail may not be considered favourably, on merits and expeditiously. He apprehends that earlier processes issued by court must have been returned with false endorsements resulting in the unenviable predicament which he is now forced to face.

2. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the above circumstances which he is now urging before this Court. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider these submissions on merits, in accordance with law Crl.M.C.NO.3966 OF 2006 2 and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. Endorsement made by the police cannot ip so facto lead the court to a ready and instant conclusion that the petitioner has been absconding. All circumstances have to be considered by the learned Magistrate. Appropriate orders must be passed on merits and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

3. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. But with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders 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.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/ Crl.M.C.NO.3966 OF 2006 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.