Kerala High Court
Cardinal Mar George Alencherry vs Joshi Varghese on 9 November, 2022
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4196 OF 2022
[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.93/2022 PASSED
BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS,
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP,
SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE,
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT
MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
K.A.ABHILASH
VINOD S. PILLAI
NAYANA VARGHESE
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY
CENTRE,CUSAT,PIN - 682032
3 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
N.RAJESH(K/1717/1999)
GOPAKUMAR P.(K/1116-C/2011)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4198/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4198 OF 2022
[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.1886/2019
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP,
SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE,
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT
MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
K.A.ABHILASH
VINOD S. PILLAI
NAYANA VARGHESE
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND RESPONDENT AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY
CENTRE,CUSAT,PIN - 682032
3 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.RAJESH N
GOPAKUMAR P.(K/1116-C/2011)
GIMMY P ANTONY(K/000150/1989)
V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)(K/000364/1975)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4201 OF 2022
[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.94/2020
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP,
SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE,
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT
MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
K.A.ABHILASH
VINOD S. PILLAI
NAYANA VARGHESE
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY
CENTRE,CUSAT,PIN - 682032
3 STATE OF KERALAREP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4212 OF 2022
[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.632/2019
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP,
SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE,
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT
MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI,PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
VINOD S. PILLAI
K.A.ABHILASH
NAYANA VARGHESE
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S
CHURCH, UNIVERSITY CENTRE,
CUSAT, PIN - 682032
3 SAJU VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.JOHN VARGHESE, GOLDEN OAK VILLA,
PADAMUGHAL, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 682030
4 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4218 OF 2022
[TO CONSIDER C.M.P.NO.798/2022 IN C.C.NO.51/2020 FOR EXEMPTION
OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND TAKING BAIL]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP, SYRO MALABAR
CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -
682031, NOW RESIDING AT MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA,
MOUNT ST.THOMAS,KAKKANAD, KOCHI
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
K.A.ABHILASH
VINOD S. PILLAI
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
NAYANA VARGHESE
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY
CENTRE,CUSAT
PIN - 682032
3 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4226 OF 2022
[TO CONSIDER C.M.P.NO.807/2022 IN C.C.NO.50/2020 FOR EXEMPTION
OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND TAKING BAIL]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP,
SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE,
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT
MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
VINOD S. PILLAI
K.A.ABHILASH
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
NAYANA VARGHESE
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH,PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY
CENTRE,CUSAT
PIN - 682032
3 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4232 OF 2022
[TO CONSIDER C.M.P.NO.794/2022 IN C.C.NO.93/2020 FOR EXEMPTION
OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND TAKING BAIL]
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY,AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP,
SYRO MALABAR CHURCH, ARCH BISHOP HOUSE,
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM -682031, NOW RESIDING AT
MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST.THOMAS,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
JOHN VARGHESE
VINOD S. PILLAI
K.A.ABHILASH
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
NAYANA VARGHESE
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED AND STATE:
1 JOSHI VARGHESE,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.VAREETH, THELAKKADAN VEETTIL,
MALAMURI BHAGOM, PULLUVAZHI KARA,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN - 683545
2 REV.FR.JOSHY PUTHUVA,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH, PRO.VIKAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, UNIVERSITY
CENTRE,
CUSAT,PIN - 682032
3 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.10.2022 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4196/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 09.11.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
4226,4232 of 2022 8
O R D E R
[Crl.MC Nos.4196/2022, 4198/2022, 4201/2022, 4212/2022,
4218/2022, 4226/2022, 4232/2022]
....
All these Criminal M.C.s are filed by the accused
seeking a direction to the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, to consider the
applications submitted by him under section 205 of
the Cr.P.C, for exemption from personal appearance
in the cases registered against him, without
insisting for his personal appearance, even for the
first time.
2. All the said cases are instituted upon
private complaints submitted by the 1st
respondent in all the said Crl.M.C.s, and the
offences alleged are under Section 406,423, 120B
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and the petitioner is the first accused in all
the said cases. In all the said cases, the
petitioner was served with the summons and the
petitioner submitted applications under Section
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
205 of Cr.P.C seeking exemption from personal
appearance before the court and to permit him to
appear through his counsel. The applications
submitted in this regard are pending before the
learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate
directed the petitioner to appear in person
before the court, even before passing orders on
the said applications. The details of the cases
and the applications filed are as follows:
SL Crl MC. NO CC No CMP No
No
1. Crl.M.C.No.4212/2022 C.C.No.632/2019 CMP.No.869/2022
2. Crl.M.C.No.4201/2022 C.C.No.94/2020 CMP.No.800/2022
3. Crl.M.C.No.4198/2022 C.C.No.1886/2019 CMP.No.803/2022
4. Crl.M.C.No.4196/2022 C.C.No.93/2022 CMP.No.1379/2022
5. Crl.M.C.No.4226/2022 C.C.No.50/2020 CMP.No.807/2022
6. Crl.M.C.No.4232/2022 C.C.No.93/2020 CMP.No.794/2022
7. Crl.M.C.No.4218/2022 C.C.No.51/2020 CMP.No.798/2022
3. In the cases shown as serial Nos. 1 to 4,
the learned Magistrate passed orders directing
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
the petitioners to appear before the court,
before the respective applications for exemption
are considered, whereas in the remaining cases,
oral directions to that effect were issued.
These Crl.M.Cs were filed in such circumstances,
seeking a direction to the learned Magistrate to
consider the applications submitted for
exemption under Section 205 of Cr.P.C, without
insisting on the personal appearance of the
petitioner.
4. The reason highlighted by the petitioner
for exemption from personal appearance, as
mentioned in his applications, is as follows;
"2. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged 77
years. The petitioner is the head of Syro
Malabar Church spread over whole world, having
a membership of 55 lakhs. The petitioner
bestowed with the duty of performing religious
ceremonies, rituals, including ordination of
Bishops,pries, consecration of churches, etc.
The petitioner also had to render supervisory
administrative functions over 35 dioceses out
of which 4 are out of India and 18 are outside
Kerala. The petitioner is also the head of the
Kerala Catholic Bishop's Council and he has to
attend meetings as well as perform duties as
the President of KCBC. The petitioner is also
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
the member of College of Cardinals and also
has to attend meetings in Rome.
3. The allegation in this case are basically
based on documents. The identification of the
petitioner is not necessary with respect to
the evidence in this case. The petitioner had
filed an undertaking stating that he will not
dispute his identity, he will appear through a
counsel and his counsel will be present on all
posting dates and also he does not have any
objection in taking the evidence in his
absence treating the presence of the counsel
as his presence. The petitioner also has
authorized his counsel to record his plea."
5. Heard Sri.P.Vijayabahanu, the learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.John Varghese,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
all the Crl.M.Cs, Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned
Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.
V.Rajendran learned Counsel appearing for 1st
respondent/complainant.
6. The learned Senior Counsel contends that,
as per Section 205 of Cr.P.C., the learned
Magistrate has ample power to grant exemption to
the petitioner from appearing in person, and
that power includes the exemption for the first
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
appearance also. Therefore, when the petitioner
submitted the applications in this regard, the
learned Magistrate ought to have taken a
decision thereon first, before insisting on his
personal appearance. The learned Senior Counsel
places reliance on various decisions such as
M/s.Bhaskar Industries Ltd v. Bhiwani Denim
Apparels Ltd and Others[(2001) 7 SCC 401], TGN
Kumar v. State of Kerala And others [2011 (1) KLT
362], Rameshwar Yadav and others v. State of Bihar
and another [(2018) 4 SCC 608], Puneet Dalmia v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad [(2020)
12 SCC 695], Mathew v. State of Kerala [1986 KLT
128], Raman Nair v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT
714], Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008 (4) KLT 16],
Raju.T.P v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 14],
Sarath.S v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KLT 95],
Kaveri and others v. The State [MANU/OR/0296/1994],
Ramesh Chandra Lath v. State of Orissa
[MANU/OR/0428/1991], Surojith Sen and others v.
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
Sanatan Behera [MANU/OR/0182/1999], Ajit Kumar
Chakraborty and others v. Serampore Municipality
[MANU/WB/0188/1988], Manager, V.G Panneerdas and
Company v. Nataraja Thevar [MANU/TN/0444/1987] and
M.Shyam Prasad Reddy v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh [MANU/AP/0555/1992]
7. The aforesaid contentions are stoutly
opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the
complainant, the 1st respondent herein. According
to him, the petitioner does not have any vested
right to seek exemption, and it is the
discretion of the court concerned. In this case,
the court has not rejected the prayer sought by
the petitioner but only insisted on the
appearance of the petitioner so that he can seek
bail by offering sureties and executing bonds,
thereby subjecting himself to the jurisdiction
of the court and making an assurance before the
court through a bond to the effect that he shall
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
cooperate with the trial by abiding by the
conditions imposed by the court. The learned
counsel also placed reliance upon statutory
stipulations contained in Section 437 of Cr.P.C,
which contain certain conditions to be imposed
by the court while the accused is released on
bail when he is arrested and brought before the
court or appears before the court, in a case in
which non-bailable offences are alleged. It is
contended that, admittedly, the petitioner is
the head of Syro Malabar Church spread over the
whole world. Most of the witnesses to be
examined in the case belong to the said Church,
and the documents to be summoned/perused are in
the custody of the members of the Church
governed by him. Therefore, since he is holding
an influential position, it is absolutely
necessary to execute a bond, undertaking to
abide by the mandatory conditions contemplated
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
under Section 437 Cr.P.C, including the
condition that he shall not directly or
indirectly influence the witnesses and shall not
dissuade such witnesses from disclosing such
facts to the court necessary for the case or
shall not tamper with the evidence. However, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent fairly
conceded that he does not have any objection in
granting exemption to the petitioner from
personal appearance, once the petitioner appears
before the court and is released on bail upon
executing the bond.
8. Thus, the questions to be decided are (1)
whether the petitioner has any right to insist
on the consideration of his application for
personal exemption without his personal
appearance for the first time and (2) whether
the order directing the personal appearance of
the petitioner passed by the learned Magistrate,
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
before taking a decision submitted by the
petitioner under section 205 of Cr.P.C is
legally correct or not.
9. While considering the first question, the
relevant provision is Section 205 of the Cr.P.C,
which reads as follows:
"205. Magistrate may dispense with personal
attendance of accused.
(1)Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he
may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense
with the personal attendance of the accused
and permit him to appear by his pleader.
(2)But the Magistrate inquiring into or
trying the case may, in his discretion, at
any stage of the proceedings, direct the
personal attendance of the accused, and, if
necessary, enforce such attendance in the
manner herein before provided."
10. From the reading of the said provision,
it can be seen that, the Magistrate has the
discretion to exempt the accused from personal
appearance, even at the time of issuance of
summons. The circumstances under which such
discretion can be exercised were the subject
matter of a large number of decisions of the
Honourable Supreme Court and various High
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
Courts. In Bhaskar Industries (supra), it was
observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in para
14 as follows:
".......Presence of the accused in the Court is
not for marking his attendance just for the
sake of seeing him in the court. It is to
enable the Court to proceed with the trial.
If the progress of the trial can be achieved
even in the absence of the accused the court
can certainly take into account the magnitude
of the sufferings which a particular accused
person may have to bear with in order to make
himself present in the court in that
particular case."
11. In paragraphs 16, 17 and 19, it was
observed as follows:
16. Section 251 is the commencing provision
in Chapter XX of the Code which deals with
trial of summons cases by magistrates. It
enjoins on the court to ask the accused
whether he pleads guilty when the accused
appears or is brought before the magistrate.
The appearance envisaged therein can either
be by personal attendance of the accused or
through his advocate. This can be understood
from Section 205(1) of the Code which says
that whenever a magistrate issues a summons,
he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense
with the personal attendance of the accused
and permit him to appear by his pleader.
17. Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate
can allow an accused to make even the first
appearance through a counsel. The magistrate
is empowered to record the plea of the
accused even when his counsel makes such plea
on behalf of the accused in a case where the
personal appearance of the accused is
dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has
to be viewed in the above perspective as it
empowers the court to dispense with the
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
personal attendance of the accused (provided
he is represented by a counsel in that case)
even for proceeding with the further steps in
the case. However, one precaution which the
court should take in such a situation is that
the said benefit need be granted only to an
accused who gives an undertaking to the
satisfaction of the court that he would not
dispute his identity as the particular
accused in the case, and that a counsel on
his behalf would be present in court and that
he has no objection in taking evidence in his
absence. This precaution is necessary for the
further progress of the proceedings including
examination of the witnesses.
18.....
19.The position, therefore, boils down to
this:It is within the powers of a magistrate
and his judicial discretion to dispense with
the personal appearance of an accused either
throughout or at any particular stage of such
proceedings in a summons case, if the
magistrate finds that insistence of his
personal presence would itself inflict
enormous suffering or tribulations to him and
the comparative advantage would be less. Such
discretion need be exercised only in rare
instances where due to far distance at which
the accused resides or carries on business or
on account of any physical or other good
reasons the magistrate feels that dispensing
with the personal attendance of the accused
would only be in the interest of justice.
However,the magistrate who grants such
benefit to the accused must take precautions
enumerated above,as a matter of course. We
may reiterate that when as accused makes an
application to a magistrate through his duly
authorized counsel praying for affording the
benefit of his personal presence being
dispensed with the magistrate can consider
all aspects and pass appropriate orders
thereon before proceeding further."
12. It is to be noted that the case dealt
with in Bhaskar Industries (supra) was a summons
case for the offence under Section 138 of the
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
Negotiable Instruments Act. The factual
circumstances under which the same rendered were
that the accused was from a different State and
was implicated as an accused because he was the
Director of the Company.
13. The said view was reiterated by the
Honourable Supreme Court in TGN Kumar's case
(supra), which was again a case where the
offence was under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
14. In Puneet Dalmia's case (supra), the
offences alleged were under Sections 420 and
409, read with Section 120B of IPC and Sections
9, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the
prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After
referring to the Bhaskar Industries case
(supra), it was held that the said principles
could also be applied in that case, even though
the allegations were serious. However, in the
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
said case, the exemption was sought after the
petitioner therein was released on bail by the
court and hence the factual situation was
different from that of this case.
15. In Rameshwar Yadav's case (supra), the
Honourable Supreme Court upheld the discretion
vested upon the learned Magistrate in granting
exemption from personal appearance in a case
registered for the offence punishable under
section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. However, the
question considered therein was whether the
powers under Section 205 Cr.p.C could be
exercised, after the accused appeared in person
without claiming exemption. It was held that the
said discretion is available for the Magistrate
even after the appearance of the accused.
16. In Mathew's case (supra), the power of
the Magistrate to grant an exemption for the
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
first appearance in a prosecution for the
offence under Section 420 of IPC was considered
by this court. In the said case, the accused was
in Switzerland, and a non bailable warrant was
issued against him and his passport was also
impounded, making his return impossible. While
considering the application for exemption under
Section 205 of Cr.P.C, it was observed by this
court in para 6 of the judgment in the manner as
follows:
"The very existence of the courts is for
dispensation of justice. The process of
courts should not be used for harassment of
litigants. The insistence on the appearance
of parties before court need be only if it
becomes absolutely necessary for some
purpose. Courts are entitled to compel the
appearance of the accused. But such
insistence should not be for the mere
pleasure of the accused being seen in the
dock. Sometimes, his presence may be
absolutely essential, say for instance for
questioning him or for himself being
identified by witnesses. Insistence on his
appearance in such cases may be alright. To
insist on his appearance on a day when his
appearance has nothing to do with the
progress of the case will only result in
unnecessary harassment, especially when he
has some inconvenience and his counsel is
prepared to represent him. In this case that
is what actually happened. The petitioner
who is the accused before the Magistrate is
already in Switzerland. Even if he wanted he
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
was not in a position to come over to India
and appear before the Magistrate because on
the requisition of the Magistrate himself his
passport was impounded by the concerned
authorities. The Magistrate ought to have
realized the fact that under such
circumstances appearance of the accused
before him was rather an impossibility. One
could only enjoy sadistic pleasure by
insisting or an unnecessary impossibility and
penalizing a person for not complying with
such a condition"
17. In Raju T.P's case (supra), this Court
held that the said power could be exercised
subject to the discretion of the court. It was
further observed that discretion is to be
exercised considering not only the convenience
of the prosecution but also the difficulties
expressed by the accused. It was further
observed that the said power is available in
warrant cases as well. It was a case where the
accused was working in Pune.
18. In Sarath. S's case (supra), this court
held that the pendency of a non bailable warrant
against the accused cannot be a ground for
refusing the prayer under section 205 of Cr.p.C,
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
if appropriate grounds are made out. That
observation was made in a case of warrant trial
where the accused was working at Sharjah, and a
non bailable warrant was issued by JFCM,
Mavelikkara.
19. In the other decisions cited by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the
Orrisa High Court, Madras High Court, Calcutta
High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court have
taken the same view.
20. Thus, upon scanning through all the said
decisions, the only conclusion possible is that
the Magistrate has the discretion to grant
exemption from personal appearance to the
accused, even before his first appearance in
person, and he can be permitted to appear
through counsel if appropriate grounds are made
out. The said discretion is available even in
both summons and warrant cases. However, going
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
by the observations of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Bhaskar industries case, such
discretion can be exercised only in rare cases
where the Magistrate feels that personal
attendance could be dispensed with due to far
distance at which the accused resides or carries
on business or on account of physical or other
goods reasons.
21. The said conclusion leads us to the next
question, i.e., whether the action of the
learned Magistrate in insisting on the personal
appearance while his applications were pending
consideration is correct. It is true that, in
some of the decisions referred to above (Raju
T.P 's case and Sarath.S's case), it was
categorically held that even the first
appearance of the accused could be permitted to
be made through counsel if there are sufficient
reasons indicating hardships for the accused in
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
appearing before the court. It is also
discernible that in those cases, the accused
persons were working out of the State or abroad,
and non bailable warrants happened to be issued.
22. In this case, it is evident that the
applications submitted by the petitioner were
not dismissed, and the same are pending
consideration. There is no doubt that the normal
rule is that, upon receipt of a summons, the
accused is under an obligation to appear before
the Court unless he is exempted from personal
appearance. It is a well settled position of law
that the exemption, which is an exception to the
normal rule, is subject to the discretion of the
Court, which has to be exercised cautiously and
judiciously in rare instances,(as held in
Bhaskar Industries Case (supra) taking into
account the hardship that is likely to be caused
to the accused. It is not necessary to insist on
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
the physical appearance of the accused on all
posting dates, unless his appearance is
absolutely necessary for the proceedings of the
day. If the appearance can be dispensed with,
without affecting the proceedings of the court,
appropriate orders in this regard should be
passed.
23. However, when the exemption sought is
for the first appearance, the standards to be
applied should be more stringent. In this
regard, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent, relying on the
stipulations in section 437 of Cr.P.C, is
relevant. The said provision deals with the
circumstances under which bail can be granted to
a person who is accused of a non-bailable
offence, when he is brought before the court or
appears before the court. Subsection (3) of
Section 437 reads as follows:
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
"437(3): When a person accused or suspected
of the commission of an offence punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to seven
years or more or of an offence under Chapter
VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian
Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or
attempt to commit, any such offence, is
released on bail under sub- section (1), the
Court may impose any condition which the
Court considers necessary-
(a)in order to ensure that such person shall
attend in accordance with the conditions of
the bond executed under this Chapter, or
(b) in order to ensure that such person shall
not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused or of the commission
of which he is suspected, or
(c)otherwise in the interests of justice."
24. From the above, it is evident that when a
person accused or suspected of the commission of
an offence punishable with imprisonment, which
may extend to seven years or more or of an
offence under Chapter XVI or XVII, appears or
brought before the court, his release on bail
shall be subject to the conditions as mentioned
above. Therefore, in respect of the persons
accused of the offences included in the category
of the offences coming under Sub Section(3) of
Section 437, the Court is bound to impose the
conditions stipulated therein. The word used in
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
Sub Section (3) of Section 437 as regards the
imposition of conditions is 'shall', which
indicates that the same is mandatory. In the
light of the mandatory nature of the conditions,
it is absolutely necessary that the accused
executes a bond, undertaking to abide by the
said conditions, for which the personal
appearance of the petitioner is required.
Therefore the first appearance of the
petitioner, as far as the offences covered by
Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. are concerned, is not
a mere formality but a necessity to ensure that
the accused agrees to abide by the conditions
stipulated therein, by executing a bond in this
regard. Though, exemption from personal
appearance for the first appearance can be
granted to the person accused of the aforesaid
offences, it should be in exceptional
circumstances, where extreme hardship is caused
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
to the accused, or the accused is unable to
appear before the court due to reasons beyond
his control.
25. Now, coming to the facts of this case,
the offences alleged against the petitioner
include those under Sections 409,420 and 467 of
the Indian Penal Code, which are punishable with
imprisonment for seven years or more. In some of
the cases, the offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 406 and 423, read
with 120B of IPC. Even though the punishment for
the said offences is imprisonment for a term
lesser than seven years, those offences come
under Chapter XVII of IPC, and hence for that
reason, that would come under Sub-Section (3) of
Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the rigour
of the said provision applies to all the cases
of the petitioner. Unless there are exceptional
grounds, the exemption from personal appearance
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
for the first appearance cannot be granted. As
mentioned above, in the Bhaskar Industries case
(supra), the reasons mentioned are due to the
far distance at which the accused resides or
carries on business or on account of physical or
other goods reasons.
26. When considering whether any reasonable
or exceptional circumstances exist, the reason
mentioned in the application submitted by the
petitioner is to be considered. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for 1st
respondent, even according to him, the
petitioner is the head of Syro Malabar Church
spread all over the world, having a membership
of 55 lakhs. He has supervisory administrative
functions over 36 dioceses, of which four are
out of India and 18 are outside Kerala. He has
to attend meetings and perform duties as the
President of KCBC. Since he is a member of the
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
College of Cardinals, he also has to participate
in meetings in Rome. Thus it can be seen that he
is admittedly attending meetings worldwide as
part of administrative functions. This would
indicate that he is not under any physical
difficulty, which prevents him from appearing
before the court at least on one occasion to
take bail and execute the bond, agreeing the
conditions in Sub Section(3) of Section 437 of
Cr.P.C. The crucial aspect to note in this
regard is that the petitioner ordinarily resides
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad,
where the cases are pending. It is reported that
the distance between the place of the residence
of the petitioner and the court is just about 3
Kms. Therefore, under any circumstances, it
cannot be concluded that there exists
exceptional circumstances which prevent the
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
petitioner from attending the court in person,
at least for the first time and executing bonds
in tune with section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
27. There is yet another aspect which makes
the prayer sought in these Crl.M.Cs.
unsustainable. As mentioned above, the accused
is bound to appear before the court unless the
court exempts him from personal appearance.
Since exemption contemplated under Section 205
Cr.P.C, is an exception to the normal rule
requiring the physical presence of the accused
before the court, subject to the discretion of
the court, it cannot be contended that the
accused has a vested right to get an exemption.
The only obligation on the part of the learned
Magistrate is that he has to exercise the
discretion judiciously. In this case, I have
already found that no exceptional circumstances
are in existence warranting an order exempting
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
the petitioner from the 1st appearance.
Therefore, I do not find any justification on
the part of the petitioner in seeking an order
directing the Magistrate to consider the
application for exemption under section 205
without insisting on the physical presence of
the petitioner. In my view, nothing precludes
the learned Magistrate from insisting on the
personal appearance of the petitioner before
considering his application. It is also to be
noted in this regard that the prayer in the
petition submitted by the petitioner before the
Magistrate is to exempt him from personal
appearance throughout the trial and the said
prayer can be considered by the learned
Magistrate, even after the first appearance of
the petitioner. So no prejudice would be caused
to the petitioner by appearing before the court
and executing the bonds.
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
28. Moreover, granting an exemption to the
petitioner for the first appearance in this
case, would send a wrong message to the Society
as well. According to the petitioner, he is a
religious head required to carry out several
functions in various capacities and seeks
exemption on that ground. In my view, the
position that he holds would not make him
entitled to any special privileges when he is
brought before a court of law as an accused. The
statutory mandate is over and above all the
superiority the accused possesses or claims to
have, by virtue of his position. Irrespective of
his position, he is just an accused before the
court of law, who is not entitled to claim any
special privilege and is required to face the
proceedings just like any other citizen. The
provisions of Cr.P.C does not distinguish
between ordinary citizens and persons holding
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
superior positions in their religious,
political, social, or other institutions.
Equality before the law, the laudable principle
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, is not confined in its application only
in cases where one seeks to enforce his rights.
It is equally applicable when a person is
proceeded against for violating the law or for
committing an offence, and no preferential
treatment can be claimed by anyone for any
reason whatsoever, unless the statute
contemplates such privilege. As observed by the
Honourable Supreme Court, in Lily Begum v. Joy
Chandra Nagbanshi [(1994) 2 SCC 39], which is
relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1 st
respondent, if such a privilege is given to the
accused, people will lose their confidence in
the administration of justice.
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
29. Thus, after considering all the relevant
aspects, I am of the firm view that the prayers
sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, and
these Crl.M.Cs are devoid of any merit. Hence,
I am not inclined to grant the relief sought.
However, it is made clear that the observations
made by this court in this order are only in
respect of the prayer for exemption from the
first appearance of the petitioner in person.
Once the petitioner appears and is released on
bail on executing bonds, the applications
submitted by the petitioner under Section 205
Cr.P.C. are to be considered without any delay,
by taking into account the fact that the
physical presence of the petitioner may not be
required on all posting dates. This is mainly
because, the question of identity is not a
matter of concern, and the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent conceded before this Court
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
that he does not have any objection in granting
exemption to the petitioner under Section 205 of
Cr.P.C., once the petitioner appears before the
court and takes bail. Since the proceedings
pending before the Magistrate are instituted
upon private complaint, the concession made by
the 1st respondent is relevant and can be acted
upon while deciding the said applications.
The Crl.M.Cs are disposed of with the above
observations.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4196/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.1379/2022 DATED 21.06.2022 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.93/2022 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.1379/2022 IN
C.C.NO.93/2022 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4198/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.803/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.1886/2019 ON THE FILE
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.803/2022 IN
C.C.NO.1886/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4201/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.800/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.94/2020 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.800/2022 IN
C.C.NO.94/2020 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4212/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN
C.C.NO.632/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
DATED 16.07.2018
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPL.LEAVE TO
APPEAL (CRL.) NO.2849/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA DATED 01.04.2022
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.869/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.632/2019 ON THE FILE
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KAKKANAD
ANNEXURE A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
21.06.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.869/2022 IN
C.C.NO.632/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4218/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.798/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4226/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.807/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
Crl.MC Nos.4196,4198,4201,4212,4218
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4232/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
C.M.P.NO.794/2022 DATED 12.04.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
