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

1995 Supreme(Mad) 36

S.M.ALI MOHAMED
Francis Xavier – Appellant
Versus
Neelamegam, Inspector of Police, Pondy Bazaar Police Station, Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Karpagavinayagam, C. Sreedharan, T.K. Sampath, S. Anbalagan, P.N. Prakash, K. Balakrishnan, A. Natarajan, V. Padmanabhan, G. Jermaiah, S. alanivelayutham, B. Soundarapandian, I. Paul Noble Devakumar, C.J. Madanagopal, V. Krishnamoorthy, R. Balasubramani, K.P. Chandrasekaran, M. Ravichandran, B. Pugalanthi, A. Packiaraj, A. Muralidharan, R.C. Paul Kanakaraj, A. Anbarasan, C. Selvaraju, Mrs. SudhaRamalingam, V. Ramamurthi, G. Suryanarayanan, T. Munirathina Naidu, K.N. Basha, S. Swamidoss Manohar, C. Prahasam, Rathinaraj,
R. Rajan, T. Muruganathan, V.R. Balakrishnan, N.S. Rajaram, A.D. Jagadesh Chandra, Rathnaraj, Saravanan, K. Mohan Ram, J. Nallathambi Jothi Pandian, V. Gopinath, M. Sathyanarayanan, K.Selvarangam, K. Udayakumar, D. Gubendra Gunabalan, M. Nageswaran, B. Nedunchezhian, S. Sairam, R. Rajan, S. Doraiswamy, S.P.N. Vimalandhan, M. Chandrasekaran, V. Balakrishnan, K. Selvakumarasamy, S. Thiruvenkatasamy, M. Devaraj, D. Veerasekaran, L. Mohan, A. Selvaraj, K. Selvaraj, M.S. Sudharsanan, D. Rajagopal, R. Vijayaraghavan, G. Ramesh, R.N. Mohindeen Basha, M. Karthikeyanarayanan, T.V. Ganesh, V. Balu, A.C. Jayalakshmi, Ms.K. Sumathy, C. Deivasaynam, R. Sankara Subbu, S. Uthirasamy, P. Govindarajan, R. Shanmugasundaram, B.S. Gnanadesigan, K. Gomi Ganesan, T. Sudanthiram, C. Prasanna Venkatesh, K. Sellathurai, A. Thamizlarasan, C. Kalaichalvam, P. Chandrasekaran, K. Jaganathan, Samuvel Raj Pandian, K. Gowri Ganesan, Mrs. Bhagirathi Rangarajan, K.S. Ramachandran, Calni Jacob, E.M. Sundaresa Nachiappan, M. Nageswaran, A. Krishna Kumar, L. Mahendran, P. Rathinavel, C.V. Khan, B.K. Singh, G. Balachandran, P. Rathinavel, K. Ravichandran, V.S. Ramadoss, R. Thiagarajan, C.G. Narandran, J. Thiagarajan, Radhakrishnan, Mohana Krishnan, C.V. Bakthavat-chalam, Balakrishnan, R. Subramanian, Jayakumar, K. Sampath, R. Rajan, A. Muralidharan, for variouspetitioners in these petitions. B. Sriramulu, Public Prosecutor, for Government of Tamil Nadu, in all the Petitions.

Judgment :-

S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.

In this batch of petitions, a common question of law arises, viz., whether the petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. is maintainable, in view of the specific provision under Sec. 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners in the respective criminal original petitions were enlarged on bail, but failed to appear before the concerned Magistrates/trial courts and the concerned Magistrates/trial courts have issued non-bailable warrants to compel the presence of the petitioners before the court for trial or enquiry. The petitioners have filed these criminal original petitions, under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. for recall or cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Magistrates/trial courts giving stereo-typed reasons for non-appearance before the courts, viz., they were sick or down with jaundice or they were held in elsewhere due to alleged reasons beyond their control.

2. The point for consideration is whether this Court has power under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. to recall or cancel non-bailable warrant and direct the petitioners to present before the Magistrate/trial courts on a particular date in the teeth of specific provision containing in Sec


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top