Back
R.REGUPATHI
V. G. K. Senthilnathan – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters & Others – Respondent
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
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
