Order dismissing criminal petition seeking recall of non-bailable warrant. Related headnote notes refusal to admit irrelevant civil suit documents in Section 138 NI Act trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5857 of 2012
O R D E R:
The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 20 (i) (c ), (ii), (iv), (vii), (ix), (x) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, Section 379 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention to Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that after taking the charge sheet on file, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. If it is so, the petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Magistrate and seek recalling of non-bailable warrant by filing necessary petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C, in which event, the Magistrate will pass orders on the same day.
Subject to the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
/complainant is aggrieved by common order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Magistrate refusing to recall PW.1 for filing documents after reopening the case under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The complaint in the lower Court is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(in short, the Act). It was filed in the year 2008. After completion of trial, when the case was coming up for arguments, the complainant came up with the petition. 3 documents sought to be filed as additional evidence in the Criminal Court are 1) certified copy of plaint, 2) certified copy of written statement and 3) certified copy of promissory note. They are totally irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the criminal case under the said Act. The said suit was filed 2 years after filing of the criminal case in the lower Court as O.S.No.6 of 2010. It is evident that the petitioner’s intention is to drag on his own criminal case for obvious reasons. There are absolutely no merits as well as bona fides on the part of the petitioner. The lower Court rightly dismissed the petition refusing to permit the petitioner to invoke Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt. 6th August, 2012. PNV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal petition against non-bailable warrant回忆 is maintainable.
Whether additional evidence documents from civil suit can be admitted under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in NDPS case.
6 provisions across 5 enactments
State of Andhra Pradesh
Complainant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
