Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Bijenepalli Radha Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice for the Sate and opposed the application.
2. Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.162/2016 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada; the case was posted for judgment to 24.05.2024; on that day, the accused did not appear due to health reasons and filed an application U/s.317 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to ‘Cr.P.C.’) to dispense with his presence; learned Magistrate dismissed the application, proceeded with pronouncement of judgment, found the accused guilty for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘138 N.I.Act’) and accordingly, convicted him U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C.; learned Magistrate issued Non-bailable Warrant against the petitioner/accused for his production before the Court on hearing quantum of sentence as per law, for imposing sentence for the offence
U/s.138 N.I.Act.
3. Later, the petitioner filed application on 29.05.2024 vide Crl.M.P.No.1940/2024, U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the wa
The court established that an accused must be present for sentencing to ensure a fair hearing, as mandated by law.
Accused shall be heard before passing sentence in all criminal cases notwithstanding procedure to be adopted in trying the cases.
The court outlines guidelines for issuing warrants, emphasizing personal liberty and conditions for representation by counsel in criminal proceedings.
The absence of a complainant's advocate does not justify automatic dismissal of a case if evidence is on record and the accused is avoiding service.
The court established that a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be dismissed solely due to the absence of the complainant when the case is at a stage awaiting the retur....
The need for the complainant's personal appearance and the discretion to adjourn the hearing before dismissing the complaint.
Acquittal under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. is improper if the complainant has presented evidence, necessitating judicial discretion rather than automatic dismissal for non-appearance.
The court emphasized the procedural rights of the accused concerning non-bailable warrants and bail applications, ensuring timely judicial consideration.
The Court permits the petitioner to surrender and seek bail, ensuring timely consideration of his application by the Trial Court.
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
