HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3333 of 2014
Dated: 28.03.2014
Between:
1. Alluri Sitaramaraju
2. Thotakura Venkata Vijay Kumar
3. Uddaraju Kasi Viswanadha Raju And & A-8 …. Petitioners/A-1, A-6 The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
....Respondent The Court made the following :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3333 of 2014
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1, A-6 & A-8 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings dated 30.10.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. The facts in issue are as under:
The petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.685 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. By its judgment dated 27.09.2011, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 323 and 506 IPC, but however, convicted the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.41 of 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge and the same is now pending. Not being satisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent also preferred Crl.A.No.5 of 2012 before the Sessions Court. While things stood thus, the Sessions Judge issued non- bailable warrants against the petitioners on 30.12.2013 due to non appearance before the said Court. Challenging the same, the present criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that in view of on-going strike and as the Courts were not functioning during the said period, the petitioners were advised not attend the Court and that their absence was neither willful nor wanton.
5. In Inder Mohan Goswami & another vs. State of
[1]
Uttaranchal and Others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The Court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non- bailable warrants should be avoided.”
6. In Crl.P.No.8447 of 2012, this Court having found that the offence alleged is not a heinous one so as to directly issue non-bailable warrants, modified the order by converting the same into bailable warrants.
7. A perusal of the material placed before this Court would indicate that the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent is pending. It is also not in dispute that on the day when warrants were issued, the Advocates practicing in the said region were on strike due to Seemandhra agitation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the non appearance of the petitioners on the said date was either willful or wanton.
8. Taking into consideration of the nature of offence with which the petitioners are charged, non bailable warrants issued against the petitioners shall be stayed for a period of eight weeks from today and in the meantime, the petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court and take steps for recall of non bailable warrants, which shall be considered in accordance with law by taking into consideration the above mentioned facts.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is further made clear that the presence of the petitioners on every date of adjournment may not be necessary except on the dates when their presence is specifically required by the Court.
10. With the above directions, the criminal petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 28th March 2014. mar
[1] 2008 (1) SCC Crl 259 () = AIR 2008 SC 251