Back
2005 Supreme(AP) 74
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Jayalaxmi Traders, Chowdepalli, Chittoor Dist - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool Dist - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-05
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 388(2), 418(2) - Conviction - Avoiding of Arrest - Convict, if trying to avoid punishment imposed, court cannot remains as a mute spectator - Court must and ought to take serious view on such misuse of judicial process.
Held : Legal justice requires that an offender convicted of a crime must suffer the imprisonment as otherwise there would be social anarchy. People would contravene the law with impunity without any attending punishment for violating the law. The very foundations of democracy and rule of law would be shaken and that is the reason why Courts strive to treat all persons before criminal law as equal. Whether one is rich or poor, whether one is in powerful or powerless, the criminal law is equally applied to all equally.
Be you ever so high, but the law is above you , is the signature theme of rule of law that loudly and silently (as well) echoes in Indian Constitutional context. The purpose of the Constitution itself is to equalize the men (and women) before law. Equal protection of laws and equality before law does not make any distinction between the ruler and the Ruled when it comes to enforcing the criminal sanctions. If a convict with money power as well as political power can avoid the punishment imposed by the highest Court of the State, the Court which imposed such punishment cannot be a mute spectator or dumb listener to be soothed by high caliber forensic oratory of the council at the altar of justice. The Court must and ought to take a serious view of such bizarre incidence: be it one in million. Of course, the law makers and law enforcers must willingly assist the Court in angling the convict avoiding and dodging the law makers, the law enforcers and the law interpreters (Judges and Courts).
So as to avoid misuse of the judicial process as well as legal process by convicts like third respondent with the connivance of law enforcement agency, appropriate steps need be taken by the director General and Inspector General of police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by issuing necessary standing orders in this regard.
( 1 ) THIS case presents a shocking incident of an accused convicted by the highest Court of the State of Andhra Pradesh escaping the arm of the law and evading arrest to avoid suffering of imprisonment in the prison for the period to which he is sentenced. As the facts in this case unfold, it becomes very clear that criminals can still escape the law with the connivance of law enforcement agencies, even though such criminal has been found to have violated criminal law. The silver line in the dark cloud, however, has been that when this Court refused permission to withdraw the writ petition at a later stage, things moved with a lightening speed ending in bringing the convict to the book. Fact of the Matter:
( 2 ) FACT of the matter in brief is as follows. The third respondent herein is a businessman. His concern, M/s. Vikas trading Corporation, Adoni, in Kurnool district, purchased 126 bags of groundnut seeds worth about Rs. 2,28,747/- (Rupees two lakh twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and forty seven only) under two invoices, from M/s. Jayalaxmi Traders, chowdepalli, in Chittoor District, the petitioner herein. The third respondent paid rs. 33,747/- (Rupees thirty three thousand seven hundred forty seven only ). For the balance amount, he issued two cheques in favour of the petitioner firm. The cheques were dishonoured. The petitioner firm filed criminal cases being C. C. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class (JFCM), punganur in Chittoor District, under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act ). The third respondent approached this Court and initiated proceedings for quashing the criminal case. This Court quashed the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC but directed the learned Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case under Section 138 of the Act. A joint trial was conducted in C. C. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1991.
( 3 ) THE Court of the Additional JFCM, punganur acquitted the third respondent. The petitioner firm filed criminal appeals being Crl. A. Nos. 32 and 33 of 1997. This court by order dated 27-12-1998 allowed both the appeals in the following manner: in the result, both the appeals are allowed and the orders of acquittal in both the cases are set aside. I convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and sentence him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,ooo/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) in C. C. No. 97/1991 and in default to pay the fine, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for three (3) years (sic. months ). Further, I convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act and sentence him to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) in C. C. No. 98/1991 and in default to pay the fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for three (3) months. The sentences of imprisonment imposed in both the cases are ordered to run concurrently.
( 4 ) THE petitioner herein, thereafter, filed applications before the Court of Additional jfcm for issuance of warrants against the third respondent. When the same were returned, he filed criminal petition being crl. P. No. 2962 of 1999. By order dated 20-7-1999, this Court allowed the said petition. The operative portion of the said order reads as under. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends and rightly so that though there is no specific direction in the judgment of the High Court to the magistrate concerned to issue NBWS, the very fact that the appeal against acquittal was allowed and the accused was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and was sentenced to imprisonment as stated above in itself is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to issue a warrant fo
