Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI
V.G.K. Senthilnathan
Versus
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters & Others
Crl.O.P. Nos.18411, 16414, 13992, 20051 and 20052 of 2009
Decided on : 06-10-2009
Non-Bailable Warrants - Execution of Warrants - Sections 61 to 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The judgment discusses the execution of non-bailable warrants in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for a time frame for execution of warrants and the consequences of non-compliance. It highlights the provisions of Sections 61 to 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, focusing on the issuance and execution of summons and warrants, as well as the procedures for proclamation and attachment of property. The court directs the criminal courts to issue warrants with a time frame for execution and outlines specific directives for adherence to the prescribed procedures, emphasizing the importance of prompt and effective execution of warrants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves petitions seeking the execution of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against accused individuals in various criminal cases, including a murder case and cheque bounce cases. The petitioners express concerns about the failure of the police to execute the warrants, leading to delays in legal proceedings and the escape of accused individuals from legal obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the accused individuals in the murder case had evaded serving their sentences for several years due to lapses in the system, and there were instances of accused individuals leaving the country to escape legal proceedings in cheque bounce cases. The court emphasizes the need for a flaw-free, prompt, and perfect procedure, mindful judicial reaction, and compliant enforcement to address the crisis in the criminal justice system.
Issues: The issues addressed include the failure of the police to execute non-bailable warrants, the collusion between accused individuals and police officers, the pendency of cases due to non-appearance of accused individuals, and the impact on the judicial system.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of a time frame for execution of warrants, citing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 61 to 83) related to summons, warrants, proclamation, and attachment of property. It directs the criminal courts to issue warrants with a specified time frame for execution and outlines specific directives for adherence to the prescribed procedures, including the involvement of the police department in executing warrants.
Final Decision: The court closes the specific petition related to the murder case as the accused individuals have been secured, and issues directives to the lower courts and the police department for strict adherence to the prescribed procedures for execution of warrants. It instructs the criminal courts to issue warrants with a time frame for execution and outlines specific directives for adherence to the prescribed procedures, emphasizing the importance of prompt and effective execution of warrants.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the need for a time frame for execution of NBWs and adherence to Cr.P.C. provisions for summons, warrants, proclamation, and attachment of property. (!) (!) (!) - It directs criminal courts to issue NBWs with a specified time frame for execution (30 days) and to file status reports if not executed by the expiry. (!) (!) (!) - It mandates steps like proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and potential resort to Section 83 Cr.P.C. for securing presence or proceeding against sureties where appropriate. (!) (!) (!) - It requires monthly statistics and administrative directions to ensure prompt execution, with potential disciplinary action against colluding officers. (!) (!) (!) - It recognizes the problem of absconding and recommends measures involving immigration authorities, publicity, and targeted enforcement to prevent evasion. (!) (!) - The judgment closes NBW-related petitions where accused are secured, and issues guidelines for lower courts and police compliance. (!) (!)
The petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.18411 of 2009 is the son of one Kaliyamoorthy, who was murdered on 011. 1990 and the accused-trio faced trial before the Sessions Court, East Thanjavur (Nagapattinam) in S.C. No.110 of 1991 and ultimately, A1 was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment while A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 and 3 years respectively. On Appeal before this Court in C.A. No.735 of 1992, though the sentence imposed by the trial court was suspended by ordering the miscellaneous petitions, by Judgment dated 27.03.2001, the appeal was dismissed, whereupon, A-3 surrendered and served the sentence while A-1 and A-2 did not surrender and they remain to be at large in spite of the Non-Bailable Warrants issued; therefore, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to secure A-1 and A-2 for serving the remaining period of sentence.
2. In Crl.O.P. Nos.13992, 16414, 20051 and 20052 of 2009, the petitioners/complainants in C.C. No.381 of 2006 on the file of JM-V, Salem, C.C. No.36 of 2007 on the file of JM, Tiruttani and C.C. Nos.652 and 130 of 2006 on the file of JM-I, Tiruppur, seek to execute the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the accused concerned.
3. All the above Criminal Original Petitions pertain to prayer for execution of NBWs of course in variant proceedings pending before different criminal courts, hence, they are disposed of by this Common Judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.18411 of 2008 submits that A-1 and A-2, who are brothers, are attending public functions along with political leaders and though they are apparently visible in the society, because of their high political influence, the respondent police never turned towards them to perform the legal obligation as a law enforcing agency. Several representations sent repeatedly with the final one on 06.08.2009 did not yield any outcome; hence, the petitioner has been constrained to prefer the present petition for a direction to secure them so that they are sent to Prison for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
4-A. To begin with, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by assuring this Court that such unwanted instances would not recur in future, submits that the present officer of the 4th respondent-police station has taken charge only on 13.08.2009 and, on coming to know that the accused persons in the murder case are still absconding, he approached Judicial Magistrate-I, Mayiladuthurai, who issued a Non-bailable Warrant dated 09.09.2009, whereupon, A2 was arrested on 28.09.2009 while A1 surrendered before the Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, on 010. 2009. He states that in between 2001 and 2009, several Officers were sequentially in charge of the 4th respondent-police station and that the Officer, who is now serving in the said Station, soon after issuance of notice by this Court, received NBW from the court of the Magistrate and duly executed the same. He further states that because of transfer of officers and hectic pressure and workload, sometimes pendency of NBWs escape their notice and as a consequence thereof, enquiry, trial and further proceeding of criminal cases are unfortunately getting delayed. He submits that necessary instructions would be given to the first respondent, Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, for suitably directing the Station House Officers relating to execution of pending NBWs without any delay so that the absconding accused could be secured and made available in future for the enquiry/trial/further proceedings before court.
Focussing on the prevalent situation in the Criminal Justice Administration, learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that in some cases where accused is absconding and final report is ready to be filed, the committal courts decline to accept the final report and insists for production of the accused and there are instances where, for the reason that o
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
