THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.P.No. 1212/2014
ORDER:
The petitioner who is an accused in CC No.924/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet, filed the present application questioning the issuance of non-bailable warrant against him on 9-9-2004. A charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 408 and 420 IPC.
The allegations in the charge sheet would disclose that L.W.1 who is the Executive Director of Paripurna Dairy Products (P) Ltd., was looking after the affairs of the said company. In the year 1999, the accused approached L.W.1 for employment after his retirement from Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation. Believing the representation made by the accused with regard to his experience, the complainant appointed him as General Manager in the month of February, 1999. During his tenure as General Manager of the Company, the accused requested the informant to invest some amount for the smooth running of the company. Believing the representation, the informant arranged Rs.9,09,450/- and handed over the same to the accused. In stead of procuring the products, the accused is alleged to have misappropriated the said amount and shown the same as his own in the books of account. The said fact came to light during the course of audit and the same was brought to the notice of the informant. According to the audit report, the accused has siphoned of funds by selling 5000 kgs of skimmed milk powder on 31-7-2000 and 1-3-2000 worth Rs.3.5 lakhs. A report about the said incident was lodged on 15-11-2000, which came to be registered as Cr.No.139/2000 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet.
The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the learned Magistrate erred in issuing non-bailable warrant on 9-9-2004. In view of the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the year 2001, he submits that issuance of non-bailable warrant is unwarranted. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of [1] Uttaranchal , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate ought to have issued summons before taking the coercive step of issuing a non-bailable warrant.
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that the crime was registered in the year 2000 and the anticipatory bail was granted by this court on 16-3-2011 vide Crl.P.No.1031/2001, whereing the Station House Officer, Jaggaiahpet was directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for a like sum to his satisfaction. Though the said order was passed in the month of March, 2001 till date the petitioner did not execute bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officials. Even after filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner did not attend the court. The docket order in CC No.924/2002 filed along with the criminal petition would indicate that the trial court issued summons to the petitioner/accused on 9-12-2002, 14-7-2003, 11-2-2004 and 29-7-
2004. As the summons could not be served, the learned Magistrate was forced to issue non-bailable warrant on 9-9-2004. While things stood, the petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.30/2012 in CC No.924/2002 before the trial court seeking recall of warrant issued against him. In the said petition, the petitioner admits that he could not appear before the trial court when the matter stood posted for his appearance, but however he could not give any reason for his non appearance before the trial court. The Public Prosecutor filed counter opposing the application. After hearing the matter at length, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on 26-9-2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.2293/2012 before this Court. By an order dt. 19- 11-2013, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and on his appearance, he was directed to be released on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case and the petitioner was directed to co-operate for an early disposal of the criminal case. In spite of an order being passed in his favour, the petitioner could not utilize the same and it is represented that he did not execute bonds as directed by this court in the month of November, 2013. Without complying with the said order, the present application is again filed challenging the very issuance of non-bailable warrant in the month of September, 2004. The legality and validity of an order dt. 9-9-2004 was already questioned in Crl.M.P.No.30/2012. Being unsuccessful, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.2293/2012 before this court. Having failed to comply with the orders passed by this court, he filed the present application. The intention of the petitioner is quiet clear that he does not want to appear before the trial court and is dragging the matter one pretext or the other. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to rely upon a judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami (1 supra) to show that initially summons should have been issued in stead of non-bailable warrant, the said judgment in my view may not apply for the reason that after filing of the charge sheet the trial court initially issued summons and as the petitioner failed to appear non-bailable warrant came to be issued. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the criminal petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
Date: 12-2-2014 KMR [1] (2007) 12 SCC 1