( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges Annexure D endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent. A complaint was made by the 1st respondent with respect to an offence committed by the petitioner, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Annexure C is the summons issued to the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 2-5-1997. The petitioner alleges that he appeared on 2-5-1997, but the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned to 30-5-1997. On that day, the accused was present along with his counsel. It is seen that on that day the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent in the following manner : @@ "accused present. No bail petition filed, hence the accused is remanded to J. C. Call on 13-6-97. Sd/- II A. C. M. M. Bail petition filed, the accused is released on executing P. B. , and S. B. , of Rs. 10,000/ -. Surety not furnished, hence the accused is remanded to J. C. till 13-6-97. Sd/- II A. C. M. M. "@@

( 2 ) IT is this endorsement that is challenged by the petitioner in these proceedings.

( 3 ) IT is urged by the petitioner that the copy of the complaint was not furnished to him along with the summons. Normally, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. , in a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. It means, there is a means for the accused to know what is the complaint arraigned against him what are the charges he is to face and whether it is a bailable or non-bailable offence alleged etc. , etc. This is also necessary because he should decide as to whether the summons is issued in a warrant case or summons case and to know the necessity to avail bail. As can be seen from the Code, S. 2 (w), Cr. P. C. , defines "summons case" and S. 2 (x) defines "warrant case". In a warrant case, the punishment involved is imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. The allegation made in the complaint as could be seen from the Lawyer Notice Annexures A and B is that the offence involves of an offence wherein the punishment of less than two years and therefore it is a summons case. Normally a warrant could not have been issued to the petitioner at the first instance in a given case. If that be the position, to secure the presence of the accused, there was no need to issue Annexure D order calling upon the petitioner to get himself enlarged on bail. That is totally unwarranted. In a summons case, if the accused appears in pursuance to the summons issued by the Court, and is present in the Court, there is no need for him to move a bail application or furnish personal Bond for his subsequent appearance. Such procedure is not contemplated under law.

( 4 ) MR. N. K. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, submitted that Section 88 of the Cr. P. C. empowers the Magistrate to call upon the accused to furnish bond, security or bail for his release. Section 88 reads as follows :"sec. 88. Power to take bond for appearance : When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such Officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial. "

( 5 ) A careful reading of Section 88 would disclose that it does not apply to the situation as in hand. The section indicates that if a person is present in a Court in connection with a case or otherwise and the Officer presiding the Court is entitled to issue summons or warrant to secure his presence, then he may direct that person to execute a bond for his presence in his Court on a later date or to secure his presence in some other Court notwithstanding the fact that his presence in the Court at the relevant time is not in connection with that case for which he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document