Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUHAMMED AHAMMED ULLI ALIAS versus K. SUBAIR, S/O. KHASIM PILLA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MUHAMMED AHAMMED ULLI ALIAS v. K. SUBAIR, S/O. KHASIM PILLA - Crl MC No. 2279 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13270 (17 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2279 of 2007()

1. MUHAMMED AHAMMED ULLI ALIAS
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K. SUBAIR, S/O. KHASIM PILLA,
... Respondent

2. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C. NO. 2279 OF 2007

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The petitioner had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. But the petitioner could not appear before the learned Magistrate on subsequent dates of posting. Consequently, a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. Hearing on the question of charge has not been undertaken by the learned Magistrate so far and no orders have been passed under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is employed abroad. His absence is not wilful; but is due to reasons beyond his control. The learned Magistrate Crl.M.C. NO. 2279 OF 2007 -: 2 :- has taken coercive processes against the petitioner.

2. The short prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner may be permitted to appear before the learned Magistrate through counsel and claim discharge. If the learned Magistrate takes the view that the charges are liable to be framed, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of three months. The coercive process under Secs.82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. may not be permitted to proceed further until such an opportunity is given to the petitioner. This, in short, is the prayer.

3. The petitioner had entered appearance and was being represented by counsel. The application filed by his counsel was rejected and a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. I find no reason why insistence should be made on the personal presence of the petitioner when the prayer is for discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Considering all relevant circumstances in this case, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the learned Magistrate to keep the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner pending till 17/10/07. In the meantime, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear through pleader and stake his claim for discharge. The learned Magistrate shall Crl.M.C. NO. 2279 OF 2007 -: 3 :- consider such plea for discharge of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, only if the personal presence of the petitioner is necessary for framing charge, need the petitioner be directed to appear after 17/10/07.

5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, allowed and the above directions are issued. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.