Disposed

Ranjith J. Kappan v. M/S. Sobha Steel

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017Crl.MC/3772/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous petition concerned an accused charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court directed the accused to voluntarily surrender within two weeks. Upon surrendering, the accused must file a bail application for the lower court to consider based on specific Supreme Court precedents, while all pending coercive measures remain suspended.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to surrender within 2 weeks for bail consideration; pending coercive steps suspended; liberty to seek personal exemption under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. post-bail.

Ranjith J. Kappan Vs M/S. Sobha Steel — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3772 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC.924/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -III, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

RANJITH J. KAPPAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. JOSE C. KAPPAN, KAPPAN HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD POST, ERNAKULAM - 683 578.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1.M/S. SOBHA STEEL, CHANDHAPURA, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.I. OUSEPH JOY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. INASU, KOZHUKKULLIKKARAN HOUSE, KAINOOR POST, THRISSUR - 680 014.

¶12

2.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALETTY

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 3772 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III THRISSUR DT 3-11-2015. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 26-08-2015.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.3772 Of 2017

¶27

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2017.

¶28

The petitioner is the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.924/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. The prayers in this Crl.M.C are as follows:

¶29

“a) Direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur, to consider petition seeking exemption from personal appearance filed by the petitioner in Annexure A1 and pass orders thereon at the earliest.

¶30

b) To issue such orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

Heard Sri.R.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶32

the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In view of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1 stands dispensed with.

¶33

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances disclosed in the petition, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case the petitioner voluntary surrenders and appears before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within a period of 2 weeks from the date notified for receiving the certified copy of this order and makes

¶34

::2::

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.3772 Of 2017

¶36

appropriate application in relation to the prayer in this case for grant of bail, then the learned Magistrate shall consider the said application in the light of the decisions as in Oseela Abdul Khaker v. State of Kerala reported in 2014 (4) KLT 535, para 9, as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case Rasiklal v. Kishore reported in (2009) 4 SCC 446, para 9, on the same day and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law on the same day and in the light of the legal principles laid down in the aforecited judgment of this Court and of the Apex Court as referred to hereinabove and taking into account the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioner is only a bailable offence, etc. Until orders are passed by the learned Magistrate as directed hereinabove, all further coercive steps pending against the petitioner in relation to this case will remain under suspension. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not surrender before the Magistrate within the time limit fixed by this court as indicated above, then the benefits of this direction given in this order will stand automatically vacated. After securing bail, the petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate application through his counsel seeking personal exemption from appearance in terms of Sec.205 of the Cr.P.C, upon which the learned magistrate will consider the same in accordance with

¶37

::3::

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.3772 Of 2017

¶39

the legal principles well established in that regard, more particularly as

¶40

in Reddy v. Excel Glasses Ltd. reported in 2010 (3) KLT SN 11 (Case

¶41

No.14) and ensure that order should be passed therein.

¶42

With these observations and directions, the Crl.M.C stands finally