High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O RAGHAVAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 2346 of 2007(Y)  RD-KL 13822 (23 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 2346 of 2007(Y)
1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O RAGHAVAN,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. RANGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, JCrl.M.C.No.2346 of 2007
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2007
O R D E RThe petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the Abkari Act. The petitioner was allegedly found to be in possession of 1.5 litres of arrack. Final report has now been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The committal proceedings as C.P.No.35 of 2007(and not C.P.No.358 of 2003 as shown in the petition) before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumkandom has been registered. Consequent to non appearance of the petitioner, a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent. His absence was not wilful. No notice or summons of the court was served on him. The petitioner is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and co-operate with the court for the expeditious disposal of the case. But he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law (in compliance with the directions in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]), on merits and expeditiously.
3. I find no merit in the prayer to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the Crl.M.C.No.2346 of 2007 2 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 in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22] and Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary.
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 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.2346 of 2007 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.