1. Is it possible for the system to clean up the corridors of our criminal courts by removing the dissatisfied, disgruntled and frustrated crowd of complaints, accused persons and witnesses who throng there unnecessarily? Is it possible to usher in a user - friendly and optimum - productivity ambience in those court rooms ? These questions of seminal importance do arise for consideration in this Criminal M.C. where the precise and specific question raised is not very crucial or vital.

2. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the 9th accused in C.C.102/99. She faces indictment under S.420 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code along with many others. Some co-accused have not entered appearance so far. There are three identical cases. The petitioner is allegedly a sleeping/non-active partner of a partnership firm. The firm is a financial concern. The alleged offence has been committed by the partners of the firm against one of its customers in respect of a cheque for Rs. 20,000/-. At the request of the petitioner the three cases were being posted on the same dates. On 31.10.2000 when one of the cases was called (C.C.102/99) the petitioner and her counsel were absent. There was no representation. The court thereupon issued nonbailable warrant against the petitioner under the impugned order.

3. The petitioner's counsel Sri. Chandy Joseph submits that the petitioner had apprised him of her inability to appear. He had hoped to be present at the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at 11 A.M. after finishing his work at the High Court which commences sitting at 10.15 A.M. After finishing his work at the High Court he rushed to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. But there was such a big crowd thronging the court that he could not find his way into the court in appropriate time to make a representation when C.C.102/99 was called. By the time the next case was called he was present and he filed application to excuse the absence of the petitioner. Though at the end of the calling work he made representation in the court, the learned Magistrate did not consider the said representation.

4. The petitioner is afraid to surrender before the learned Magistrate. Non bailable warrant having been issued, the petitioner apprehends that the learned Magistrate would insist that the petitioner must remain in custody at least for one day before her application for bail is considered. Such a practice is in vogue in some courts, it is submitted. Absence of the petitioner and her counsel before the court on 31.10.2000, when the case was called, was absolutely unintentional and not deliberate. In these circumstances order dated 31.10.2000 in C.C. No. 102/99 directing issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner may be set aside invoking powers under S.482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed.

5. Records have not been called for. I accept the submissions made by the learned counsel Sri. Chandy Joseph at the bar. I am shocked to hear that some of the subordinate criminal courts follows the unreasonable practice of insisting that an accused who surrenders must remain in custody at least for a day before his application for bail is considered and appropriate orders passed. I wish that these submissions were incorrect and only exaggerations or over simplified generalisations. I have no hesitation to express firmly that such a practise is inhuman and unjust. Every application for bail by an accused who surrenders in a pending case must be considered expeditiously and orders passed on the dates of such application. Unless compelling reasons are there orders on merits must be passed on such applications on the date of surrender itself. Such applications must of course be filed with prior notice to the respondents, wherever necessary.

6. In the facts and circumstances revealed in this petition, I have no hesitation to opine that the petitioner must resort to the ordinary, regular and proper