ALICE GEORGE Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
LAWS(KER)-2003-1-13
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on January 10,2003

ALICE GEORGE Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Is it possible for the system to clean up the corridors of our criminal courts by removing the dissatisfied, disgruntled and frustrated crowd of complaints, accused persons and witnesses who throng there unnecessarily Is it possible to usher in a user - friendly and optimum - productivity ambience in those court rooms These questions of seminal importance do arise for consideration in this Criminal M.C. where the precise and specific question raised is not very crucial or vital.
(2.) This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the 9th accused in C.C. 102/99. She faces indictment under S.420 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code along with many others. Some coaccused have not entered appearance so far. There are three identical cases. The petitioner is allegedly a sleeping / non active partner of a partnership firm. The firm is a financial concern. The alleged offence has been committed by the partners of the firm against one of its customers in respect of a cheque for Rs. 20,000/-. At the request of the petitioner the three cases were being posted on the same dates. On 31.10.2000 when one of the cases was called (C.C. 102/99) the petitioner and her counsel were absent. There was no representation. The court thereupon issued nonbailable warrant against the petitioner under the impugned order.
(3.) The petitioners counsel Sri. Chandy Joseph submits that the petitioner had apprised him of her inability to appear. He had hoped to be present at the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates Court at 11 A.M. after finishing his work at the High Court which commences sitting at 10.15 A.M. After finishing his work at the High Court he rushed to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates Court. But there was such a big crowd thronging the court that he could not find his way into the court in appropriate time to make a representation when C.C. 102/99 was called. By the time the next case was called he was present and he filed application to excuse the absence of the petitioner. Though at the end of the calling work he made representation in the court, the learned Magistrate did not consider the said representation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.