Disposed

Sri Tupakula Pavan Kumar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Feb 2011CRLRC/283/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court observed that the lower court was justified in refusing to recall non-bailable warrants due to the petitioner's failure to explain his repeated absences and failure to file a condonation petition when absent. However, the court granted the petitioner a final opportunity to appear and apply for recall.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court below within two weeks and file a petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the non-bailable warrants; he must invariably appear thereafter o

Sri Tupakula Pavan Kumar Reddy, Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.282 OF 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.270 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the petitioner refused to receive summons, the Court below issued non-bailable warrants, pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared before the Court below on 29.07.2010 and filed an application to recall the said warrants. Accordingly, the Court below allowed the said application and recalled the said warrants. Thereafter, again the petitioner did not appear before the Court below. In those circumstances, the Court below again issued non-bailable warrants and the petitioner filed an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the said warrants. However, as no explanation was offered for his absence on earlier occasion and as the petitioner was absent even on the date when the application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. was taken up, the Court below dismissed the said application. The same is questioned in this Revision.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record.

¶5

Initially, the petitioner refused to receive the summons and as such, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. In fact, a duty is cast upon the accused persons to receive the summons and appear before the Court below. In the case on hand, as the petitioner refused to receive the summons, which were issued, the Court below is justified in issuing non-bailable warrants against him. Subsequently, the Court below itself was

¶6

pleased to recall the warrants, when an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused. Even after that, the petitioner did not mend his behaviour and again stopped appearing before the Court. Further, it is observed in the impugned order that in spite of the conditional order passed to appear on 22.12.2010, the accused did not appear and filed an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., however the same was dismissed and non-bailable warrants were issued.

¶7

In my considered view, it cannot be said that the order impugned in this Revision is bad. The Court below is perfectly justified in dismissing the said application.

¶8

Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the only son and as his father was seriously ill and hospitalised, he attended on him at the hospital and as such, he could not appear before the Court below. If it is really a fact that the petitioner was absent due to the said reason, when he filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., he should have brought the said fact to the notice of the Court below, in which case, the Court below would have considered the same and condoned his absence. But, he did not choose to do so. However, now, as the petitioner expressed his willingness to appear before the Court below and file an application to recall the said non-bailable warrants, this Court deems it fit to give one more opportunity to him. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court below within a period of two weeks from today i.e., on or before 25.02.2011 and file a petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., upon which, the Court below shall consider the same and recall the non-bailable warrants issued against him. It is

¶9

also made clear that the petitioner shall invariably appear before the Court below as and when the said C.C. is listed. Of course, if it is so inconvenient for him, he can file an appropriate application narrating the circumstances under which he is absent from the Court.

¶10

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶11

11^th February 20110 DR

Sri Tupakula Pavan Kumar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tupakula Pavan Kumar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurati Narayana, Vs Kurati Chennamma

V.Marie Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor

S.Mangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Kondal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akurathi Srinivasa Prakash Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Y.Govinda Reddy, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh and Excise