Telangana High Court
Shaik Siraj vs The State Of Telangana on 4 August, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.107 of 2017
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor.
2. Though the notice is sent to the 2nd respondent, the
Registered cover is returned with an endorsement of the Postal
Department, that "the addressee unclaimed", hence, returned to the
sender. Therefore, this Court feels that it is an appropriate service
on the 2nd respondent.
3. The present Criminal R.C. is filed by the Petitioners / A.3 and
A.4 to set aside the order dated 27.12.2016 passed in Criminal
M.P.No. 5396 of 2016 in C.C.No. 244 of 2014 by the Special
Magistrate, Nandyal, Kurnool district.
4. Brief facts of the case are that originally the Petitioners filed
Criminal Petition No. 5911 of 2016 to quash the proceedings
initiated against them in C.C. No. 244/2014 on the file of the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate I class, at Nandyal, Kurnool Distirct, arising
out a private complaint filed under Section 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court after hearing the parties,
was pleased to dispose of the said Criminal Petition on 22.04.2016
by observing that the offence alleged against the petitioners is
punishable under
Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and since the material on record, prima facie, reveals
allegations against the petitioners, this Court was not inclined to
interfere with the trial at that stage. But considering the nature of the
allegations, wherein the question of identity of the petitioners /A-3
and A-4 does not arise, the presence of the petitioners before the
trial court was dispensed with, except on the dates when their
presence was specifically required for the purpose of examination
under Section 251 Cr.P.C., examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and also on the date of pronouncement of judgment.
5. However, the C.CNo. 244 of 2014 was taken up for trial by the
Court below on 23.05.2016. On that date, since the petitioners have
not appeared before the Court below, NBWs were issued against
them. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners herein filed
criminal petition No.15821/2016. This Court after hearing, on
09.12.2016, dismissed the criminal petition by observing that there is
no error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. However,
the petitioners were given liberty to file appropriate application
before the Magistrate concerned to recall NBWs, intimating about
the order passed by this Court on 22.04.2016. Accordingly, the
petitioners filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 5396/2016 to recall the
N.B.W. issued on 23.05.2016. The Court below after hearing both
sides recalled the N.B.Ws issued on 23.05.2016 against the
petitioners herein. However, they were directed to furnish sureties
to an extent of half of the cheque amount with two sureties for
likesum each by order dated 27.12.2016. Aggrieved by the order
dated 27.12.2016, as far as directing the petitioners to furnish
sureties to an extent of half of the cheque amount with two sureties
for likesum each is concerned, the present Criminal Revision Case
is filed.
6. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on
22.04.2016 itself, this court has dispensed with the personal
appearance of the petitioners except on the relevant days mentioned
therein, without any conditions, more particularly, with regard to
furnishing sureties. That being the case, the counsel would submit
that while passing orders on 27.12.2016, the Court below ought not
to have imposed any conditions contrary to the orders passed by
this Court in Criminal Petition No.5911/2016.
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly states that
when this Court has already dispensed with the
presence/appearance of the petitioners without any conditions, the
Court below cannot direct the petitioners to furnish sureties to an
extent of half of the cheque amount with two sureties for likesum
each.
8. A perusal of the facts and the contentions raised by both the
counsel would reveal that, it is an undisputed fact that this court on
22.04.2016, dispensed with the personal appearance of the
petitioners in C.C.No. 244/2014, except on the dates of examination
under Section 251 and 313 Cr.P.C and also on the date of
pronouncement of the judgment. If that being the case, the Court
below cannot impose any conditions more particularly with regard to
furnishing sureties, contrary to the orders passed by this Court.
Therefore, the order dated 27.12.2016 in Criminal MP No.5396 of
2016 in C.C.No.244 of 2014 as far as directing the petitioners to
furnish sureties to an extent of half of the cheque amount with two
sureties for the likesum each is set aside. The Criminal Revision
Case is allowed to the extent as indicated above.
9. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
P. KESHAVA RAO, J
Dated: 05.01.2018
JR
