N P YAHIYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 406 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The petitioner is employed abroad. He has not entered appearance before the learned Magistrate so far. Consequent to non appearance of the petitioner, a non bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, come to this Court with the plea that the proceedings against him may be quashed.

(2.) What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations raised against the petitioner were accepted, cognizance should not have been taken without the requisite sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. No previous sanction of the Central Government has been received, it is contended.

(3.) I am of the opinion that to consider this contention, the entire documents will have to be perused. Where exactly has the offence been committed and what exactly are the allegations raised will have to be scanned. I am of opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to undertake that exercise now and the interests of justice will be served ideally by granting the petitioner an opportunity to raise that contention at the preliminary stage and by directing the learned Magistrate to consider that contention and pass appropriate order. Such order passed will certainly be amenable to challenge in accordance with law.