P K SHERRIF Vs. KINETIC FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the cheque relates to only an amount of Rs.1,578/-. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings at all. There were other proceedings between the petitioner and the same payee/respondent which were also initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All those cases have now ended in acquittal. As the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the present proceedings, a warrant of arrest has been issued against him and steps under Sections 82 and 83 have been initiated.

(2.) The petitioner wants to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner apprehends that if he appears before the learned Magistrate, his application for bail may not be considered, in accordance with law, on merits and expeditiously. He further wants to file an application to lift the attachment of his property. He apprehends that the said petition may not also be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law.

(3.) I find no merit in the prayer made. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate, the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail as also his application for lifting the attachment to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].