Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
D. Ashok – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 288 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022
NBW - Criminal Revision Case - The court allowed the criminal revision case, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to consider the application for recall of NBW afresh.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the sole accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a petition to recall the NBW issued against him due to his absence in court. The petition was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish the sureties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's order was erroneous as the question of furnishing sureties arises only when the petitioner is taken into custody and granted bail, which was not the case for a petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C for recall of NBW. The court allowed the criminal revision case, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to consider the application for recall of NBW afresh.
Issues: Dismissal of petition to recall NBW under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C due to failure to furnish sureties.
Ratio Decidendi: The question of furnishing sureties arises only when the petitioner is taken into custody and granted bail, which was not applicable to a petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C for recall of NBW.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to consider the application for recall of NBW afresh.
Key Points: - The requirement of furnishing sureties does not apply to a petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C for recall of NBW (!) . - The impugned order was erroneous as the question of furnishing sureties arises only when the petitioner is taken into custody and granted bail, which was not applicable in this case (!) . - The criminal revision case is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to consider the application for recall of NBW afresh (!) .
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy J. - This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.685 of 2022 in C.C.No.518 of 2016 on the file of the learned additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, whereby the petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C to recall the NBW issued by him was dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State. Since the order pertains to dismissal of petition filed to recall the NBW, no notice is required to be issued to the 2nd respondent.
3. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.518 of 2016 on the file of the learned additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur. He is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881. It appears that owing to the absence of the petitioner in the said Court that NBW was issued against him. Thereafter, he has filed petition for recall of the said NBW under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish the sureties.
4. The question of furnishing the sureties arises only when the petitioner is taken into custody and thereafter he was granted bail on furnishing sureties. as it is only a petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C for recall of NBW, the question of furnishing sureties does not arise to dispose of the said petition. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court is erroneous. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the petitioner has furnished one surety earlier and he is not yet discharged.
5. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall consider the said application filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C for recall of NBW afresh and dispose of the same on merits after hearing the counsel for the petitioner.
6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.
AI
The requirement of furnishing sureties does not apply to a petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C for recall of NBW.
The court may recall a non-bailable warrant based on the age and health of the accused, while emphasizing the necessity of cooperation in legal proceedings.
An appellate court is required to consider all pending challenges, including interlocutory applications like those under S. 311 Cr.P.C., during the substantive appeal process, and such matters should....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
