Allowed

Meleveettil Engineering Constructions v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC17 Oct 2012CRLRC/1969/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision Case No.1969 of 2012 held that issuance of warrant is to secure presence for trial and if petitioner is ready, notice to recall warrant should be given. Court directed petitioner to appear before trial court and file application to recall warrant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before trial court and file application for recall of warrant; warrant to be recalled on same day.

Meleveettil Engineering Constructions Vs The… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1969 OF 2012

¶3

DATED 17^th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶4

BETWEEN :

¶5

Meleveettil Eng. Constructions & another

¶6

.. Petitioners-accused

¶7

and State of A.P. & another

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶10

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1969 OF 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Petitioners-accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the order dated 01.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.301 of 2011 whereby the learned XXII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissed the application filed on behalf of R.2 herein under Section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to recall the warrant issued against the petitioner.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court directed R.2 to appear before the Court on 01.10.2012 but on the said day R.2 could not attend the Court and in turn he informed the same to his counsel and requested him to file a petition before the Court, but in the meanwhile the counsel attended the Court, a non-bailable warrant was issued. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to proceed with the trial.

¶15

Apart from the aforesaid submissions, this Court is also of the view that issuance of a warrant against a person is only to secure his

¶16

presence before the concerned Court in order to proceed with the trial. Thus, the petitioner, who intends to submit himself to the Court proceedings, has to be given an opportunity. Therefore, the warrant issued against the petitioner can be ordered to be recalled.

¶17

Hence, the second petitioner herein is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 16.11.2012 and file an application seeking to recall the warrant issued against him, upon which, the trial Court shall recall the warrant on the same day.

¶18

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶20

17^th October, 2012 sur

Meleveettil Engineering Constructions v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meleveettil Engineering Constructions v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Sunny Heracleas, S/o. v. Sam Erastus Vs The District Collector

Ch.Sridhar,(A-3) Vs v.S.Rajamannar

Gopisetty Veeresham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Somulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhandameedi Sathaiah Vs The State of A.P.

P.Bixapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh