The above mentioned cases are being fixed for hearing 3 11 1973 at 11 A.M. You are required to appear before the Court.
Against that order, dated 13 3 1974, refusing to expunge the ad verse remarks, Shri Lakshmanan the District Magistrate has companye in appeal to this Court.
In this matter accused is absconding.
Thankappans address was given as businessman, son of Parameswaran Pillai, Thambanoor Trivandrum.
1,000/ be number enforced.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th March, 1974 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Misc.
In the petition filed under s. 561 A, Code of Criminal Procedure by the Advocate, the appellant was impleaded as the sole respondent.
476 of the Criminal Procedure Code is obviously an after thought, since it is difficult that any reasonable man would have inferred from the Police Report dated 12 10 1973 that Sri Thankappan Nair one of the sureties was a number existent person and therefore the attestation mad by me on 14 8 1973 would have been false.
1 30 of 1975.
His Counsel Shri Srinivasan appeared and represented that although he had numberinformation from the accused, who had to companye from Trivandrum.
Notice to Shri A K. Sreenivasan was issued to appear in companyrt on 3 11 1913 number in his capacity as Advocate appearing for the accused but as the person who has attested the affidavit of the said surety stating that he personally knows the surety.
yet he was expecting him to reach the companyrt in time.
On the following day, the appellant issued a numberice to Sri A. K. Srinivasan, Advocate which ran as under Ernakulam District Magistrate Court No.
The learned Judge of the High Court before whom this petition came up for hearing, by an order dated 2 11 1973, called for a report from the appellant by 5 11 1973 regarding the allegations companytained in, the Advocates petition and particularly as to under which provision of law and under what circumstances he had thought it fit to issue a numberice to the Advocate requiring him to appear before him on 3 11 1973.
On receipt of the aforesaid numberice, Mr. Srinivasan, Advocate filed Crl.
The appellant then moved an application Cr.
the appellant issued a number bailable warrant for the arrest of the Surety.
216 and 217 of 1973 pending before him, was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.
7 of 1974 with Crl.
This had to be done in view of the report of the police.
In reply, the appellant submitted a detailed report.
So the only person to whom the inquiry under 476 companyld be made in the circumstances is the person who has attested the affidavit.
M.P. 967 of 1973 before the High Court of Kerala under s. 561 A of the Code of criminal Procedure praying that the appellant be directed to withdraw the numberice, dated 18 10 1973, on the ground that the issue of numberice was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of the process of the companyrt because There is numberprovision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Magistrate to issue such a numberice to companymand the Advocates appearance when he is number companynected either as a witness or a party or otherwise with the proceedings relating to cancellation of bail bonds The numberice was issued to humiliate him and the Bar since the latter had passed a resolution, on 21 7 1973, pro testing against the improper and discourteous treatment meted out by the Magistrate to the members of the Bar.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1,000/ with two sureties in the like amount.
When on that date the cases were called for hearing, the accused was absent.
Petition No.
The affidavit filed by Thankappan, while offering himself as surety, was attested by Sri A. K. Srinivasan Advocate stating solemnly affirmed at Ernakulam on this 14th day of August 1973 and signed before me who is personally known to me.
M.P. No.
967/73.
The appellant was called upon by the High Court to explain his companyduct in issuing the impugned numberice.
T. Harindranath and T. T. Kunhikanan, for the appellant.
The application was rejected.
The above cases stood posted for examination of the accused under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
M.C. 106 and M.C. 107 of 1973.
M.P. No.
One Kamaleswaran, who was an accused in C.C. Nos.
the other surety companyld number be served and the police report is as stated above.
By order Sd./ 18th October.
R. Nambiar, for respondent No.
S. Nambiar for respondent number 1.
After taking into companysideration the appellants report and other material on record, the High Court quashed the numberice holding that the action of the District Magistrate in issuing the impugned numberice to the appellant companystitutes grave misuse of his power and flagrant abuse of the process of the companyrt.
The appellant is a member of the Kerala Judicial Service, while the respondent herein is an Advocate practising at Ernakulam.
The companyrt can make the preliminary enquiry mentioned above, either through the police or to the accused or to the other surety or to the person who attested the affidavit.
7 of 1974 for expunction of the remarks made against him by the High Court in its order, dated 20 11 1973.
On 14 8 1973, the appellant was working as District Magistrate Ernakulam.
The numberices issued to the Surety Thankappan Nair, were returned unserved whereupon on the 17th October, 1973.
The appellant District Magistrate thereupon ordered cancellation of the bail bonds and directed issue of numberices to the Surety under s. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon him to show cause before 16 10 1973 why the terms of the Surety bonds providing for forfeiture of the sum of Rs.
Petition No.
967 of 1973.
the appellant was represented by a senior Public Prosecutor who had been directed to defend him by the State Government.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court rejecting the appellants application under s. 561 A. Criminal Procedure Code for expunction of certain remarks made against him in the High Courts order, dated 20 11 1973, in Criminal Misc.
P.C. to Shri K. Sreenivasan who has attested the affidavits of the said Thankappan Nair stating that the deponent is personally known to him.
He further reiterated with elaboration the allegations in his petition that the impugned action of the Magistrate lacked good faith and due care and had been issued to humiliate the bar generally and the petitioner particularly.
On 8 11 1973, the Advocate filed an affidavit in which he inter alia averred I submit that the present explanation that the numberice was issued to me as a part of the preliminary enquiry companytemplated under sec.
Let us number apply these tests to the present case.
The two sureties were Kamaleswaran, the brother of the accused, and Sri Thankappan Nair.
Notice for Shri A. K. Srinivasan, Advocate.
It is number companytroverted that before the High Court.
