Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARMADAS, AMBALATHINVILA VEEDU versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DHARMADAS, AMBALATHINVILA VEEDU v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC - Crl MC No. 452 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3847 (21 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 452 of 2007()

1. DHARMADAS, AMBALATHINVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent

2. G.SURESH, KOVILVILAKATHU MADOM,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 452 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 21st day of February, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Going by the number assigned to the prosecution, it was filed as early as in 1997 (C.C.367 of 1997). The same has been transferred to the list of long pending cases and it bears the number L.P. 119 of 1999 now. The law appears to be closing in on the petitioner at last and that explains why the petitioner has rushed to this Court now. The petitioner prays that directions may be issued invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. What is the reason and what are the directions to be issued? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if two months time were granted, the amount due shall be paid. The dispute shall be settled and appropriate application for withdrawal or composition shall be filed. The matter may be directed to be kept in abeyance for two months, it is prayed. Crl.M.C.No. 452 of 2007 2

3. I am not persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. I can find no merit or grace in the prayer made by the petitioner, who has not appeared before the learned Magistrate from 1999 for the indulgence of further time of two months and to keep the proceedings in abeyance.

4. It is certainly 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 the application for bail 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 by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy. Superintended of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339).

3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above observations/directions. I may hasten to observe 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law Crl.M.C.No. 452 of 2007 3 and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, unless there are compelling and exceptional reasons. (R. BASANT) tm 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.