The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and facilitating smooth judicial functioning, and held that the impugned order issuing non-bailable warrants was unjustified.

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. The urgency as urged on behalf of the applicants is on account of non-bailable warrants issued to the petitioners by the impugned order.

2. The challenge in this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to an order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai. By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has issued non-bailable warrants against accused nos.2 to 21 and 23 to 28 in the proceedings of Private Complaint Case No. 243/SS/2005, to secure their presence before the Court on 5.1.2015. The reason for issuance of non-bailable warrant being that the Junior Advocate attached to the chamber of Shri. H.K. Prem does not have vakalatnama to represent the applicants.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that initially vakalatnama in the private complaint case was filed on behalf of the applicants accused by Advocate Shri. H.K. Prem. It is submitted that the junior of Advocate Shri. H.K. Prem, Advocate Shri. Vineet R. Randive was attending the proceedings of this private complaint case from the year 2013. On behalf of the complainant an objection was raised that Shri. Randive does not have vakalatnama to represent the accused. Shri. Randive, learned Advocate had urged before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that as he was attending the matter as Junior of Advocate Shri. H.K. Prem and was instructed by him, he however submitted that nonetheless he would procure vakalatnama from the concerned non-applicants/accused and would file the same. On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that vakalatnama on behalf of three accused was accordingly obtained and that the learned Advocate was in the process of obtaining vakalatnama from the other accused as many of them were not immediately available. It is submitted that some of them were old and some of them were dead. However, by the impugned order the learned Trial Judge at the instance of the complainant has issued non-bailable warrants against the applicants being accused nos.2 to 21 and 23 to 28 as according to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Shri. Randive was appearing without vakalatnama. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that it was not the case that these accused (applicants in this application) had discharged Advocate H.K. Prem, and his vakalatnama continued to be valid to represent the said accused. My attention is also drawn to an order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in criminal application No. 7019 of 2005 wherein the following observations were made dispensing the presence of the applicants at the trial:-

"2. I find from the record that there is a private dispute between the members of the religious trust. There are in all 29 accused. In the circumstances, in my view, the matter should be proceeded with expeditiously and disposed of without insisting on the presence of the accused persons unless absolutely required. The Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 6 also states that he has no objection if exemption is granted to all the applicants. In the circumstances, general exemption is granted to all the applicants and the trial will proceed in their absence. Even the plea may be recorded through the Advocate on record. The trial Court will however, be at liberty to ask for the presence of the accused if their presence is specifically required by the Magistrate for any reason. With these observations application stands disposed of." (Emphasis supplied)

4. On behalf of the applicant my attention is drawn to the roznama and the proceedings before the Trial Court. On 27.11.2014 an application came to be moved by Shri. Randive Advocate on behalf of non applicants and accused nos.1, 22 and 29 for recalling of witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. In this application, it was stated that the examination in chief of the complainant's witness no.2 was recorded and the matter was kept for cross-examination . It was sta