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
Accused shall be heard before passing sentence in all criminal cases notwithstanding procedure to be adopted in trying the cases.
The court established that an accused must be present for sentencing to ensure a fair hearing, as mandated by law.
The court outlines guidelines for issuing warrants, emphasizing personal liberty and conditions for representation by counsel in criminal proceedings.
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 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 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 emphasized that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, restoring the complaint for fresh adjudication after the trial Court's dismissal for non-appearance.
The court established that a petitioner unable to attend a trial may still seek bail upon surrender and warrant recall, ensuring timely consideration of such applications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.