Dismissed

Viswanathan Nechully v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jan 2020Crl.MC/611/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal miscellaneous petition challenging non-bailable warrant. Bench held no merit in directing Magistrate to recall warrant or ensure favorable bail order. Petitioner urged to explain non-appearance during bail proceedings before Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction to seek bail from learned Magistrate explaining reasons for non-appearance.

Viswanathan Nechully Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.611 OF 2020(F)

¶6

IN LP 6/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT,PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VISWANATHAN NECHULLY

¶9

AGED 41 YEARS S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, MADURA 20, 2ND STREET, VENKITESWARA COLONY, PALAKKAD - 678011, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H NO.AI27, 3RD FLOOR, FLAT NO.304 SS APARTMENT, AYA NAGAR, NEAR SHIVA DURGA MANDIR, AYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110047.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.JANET JOB

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2 HDFC BANK, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD REPRESNETED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY, AUGUSTINE JOSEPH K. G., S/O. K. M. GEORGE, KANNIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI VYTILLA, P. O., COCHIN - 682 019.

¶14

SRI C K PRASAD-PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON 27.01.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.611/2020

¶18

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶19

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.611 of 2020

¶21

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in the case C.C.No.232/2012

¶24

on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad.

¶25

The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable

¶26

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶27

The petitioner did not appear before the trial court and after taking necessary steps, the case against him was entered into the long pending register as L.P.No. 6/2015.

¶28

The plea of the petitioner is that he was residing in Delhi

¶29

and that he had not received any summons from the court and that he came to know about the case only recently. Therefore, he

¶30

has prayed that a direction may be issued to the Magistrate concerned to consider the application being submitted by him for recalling the non-bailable warrant issued against him and to

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.611/2020

¶33

release him on bail on the date of surrender itself and not to remand him to judicial custody.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶36

copy of the proceedings sheet in the case produced by him would show that summons was not served on the petitioner.

¶37

The copy of the proceedings sheet produced by the petitioner does not show whether the summons was served or not. If the petitioner surrenders before the court and files bail application, it is for the learned Magistrate to verify the records in his court and to ascertain whether summons was served or not. It is also for the learned Magistrate to keep in mind the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioner is bailable.

¶38

However, no direction can be issued to the learned Magistrate that he shall pass an order in favour of the petitioner in a bail application yet to be filed by him, that too, on the same day of filing it (See Pappachan v. Muthu : 2005 (2) KLT 76 ).

¶39

I do not find any merit in the apprehension expressed

¶40

by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate would mechanically

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.611/2020

¶43

remand him to judicial custody, if he surrenders before the court. The petitioner may convince the learned Magistrate that he had not received summons in the case and that he was residing in Delhi and that his non-appearance before the court was not intentional and wilful. It is then for the learned Magistrate to consider all such circumstances, including the fact the offence alleged against the petitioner is bailable, and to pass appropriate orders on the bail application, if any, filed by the petitioner. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would follow any unreasonable practice or procedure.

¶44

With the above observations, the petition is dismissed.

¶45

(sd/-)

¶46

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.611/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 232/2012 OF CJM COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶53

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAAR CARD BEARING NO.707656449109 ISSUED BY THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA.

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶55

TRUE COPY

Viswanathan Nechully v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanathan Nechully v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hakeem Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.M Vs C.Mohanan

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala

Tony Paul Vs v.Anilkumar

Sudhamol P.V. Vs Mariamma Varghese

K.C.Mathew Vs Alleppey Parcel Service