SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Mad) 359

1989 2 MLJ 506 a
Janarthanam, J.
Selvamani
Versus
State Represented By Inspector of Police
Decided on : 6/7/1989
Crl, M.P.No.7886 of 1989 in Crl. A.No. 158 of 1984

Insistence by Magistrate for personal appearance of accused bimonthly not warranted.

Headnote:Practice-Unconditional absolute bail granted-Failure to appear by accused as per direction of the Court-Issuance of non-bailable warrant for arrest and prosecution of accused before Court-Held, such practice should be desisted.

       

ORDER

Janarthanam, J.

1. This is an application filed Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate II, Kulithalai, pending disposal of CA. No. 158 of 1984.

2. The petitioner was found guilty for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. convicted thereunder, and sentenced to seven years R.I. by the learned Section Judge, Trichy, in S.C. No. 128 of 1983. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal in CA. No. 158 of 1984 and Crl. M.P. No. 1829 of 1984 to suspend the sentence and to release him on bail. This Court granted him absolute bail without attaching any conditions, on his executing a bond for Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the J.S.C.M. Kulithalai.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner now represents that notwithstanding the fact that no condition was imposed by this Court as regards the appearance of the petitioner before any forum, the Judicial Magistrate II, Kulithalai, is insisting for the personal appearance of the petitioner bimonthly. He also represents that if the petitioner failed to appear as insisted, the Magistrate would issue non-bailable warrant for arrest and production of the petitioner before him.

4. It is beyond one's comprehension as to how the Magistrate could insist on the appearance of the petitioner, far beyond the order of the High Court. The insistence of the appearance of the petitioner does not appear to be warranted and if the Magistrate does so under any misapprehension, it is high time that he desists from such practice. With this observation, this petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top