Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2141

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
M/s. Jeevan Emu Care Indian (P) Ltd. & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Deputy Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 186 of 2015
Decided On : 18-06-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:I. Subramaniam, Senior Counsel for K.P.S. Palanivelrajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing the evidence before summoning the accused, the need for caution before issuing non bailable warrant, and the guidelines for issuance of warrants by the Courts.

Headnote:
Non Bailable Warrant - Criminal Procedure - Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997 - Section 420, 406, 120(B) IPC, Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997 - Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Guidelines for issuance of warrants by the Courts - Personal liberty and the interest of the State - Importance of scrutinizing the evidence before summoning the accused - Need for caution before issuing non bailable warrant
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash the order of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 406 read with 120(B) IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997. The petition was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
Finding of the Court:

The Court observed that the trial Court's procedure of issuing non bailable warrant without issuing summons to the accused may amount to deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the evidence before summoning the accused and the need for caution before issuing non bailable warrant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the procedure adopted by the trial Court in issuing non bailable warrant without issuing summons to the accused, and the deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court referred to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty, the need for caution before issuing non bailable warrant, and the guidelines for issuance of warrants by the Courts.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. The Court also made observations regarding the trial Court's procedure and the necessity for adherence to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes scrutiny of evidence before summoning and caution before issuing non-bailable warrants. (!) (!) (!) - It criticizes trial courts for issuing non-bailable warrants without issuing summons when appropriate, citing Article 21 and 19 rights and constitutional safeguards. (!) (!) (!) - It sets forth guidelines and standards from Supreme Court decisions on when and how warrants (bailable or non-bailable) should be issued, including procedural requirements and record-keeping. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It references the need to balance personal liberty with societal interest and to avoid misuse of warrants, with particular emphasis on follow-up and return of warrants. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment notes that summons should be preferred initially, with non-bailable warrants as a last resort when accused avoid proceedings. (!) - It records the dismissal of the petition as not pressed, with liberty to pursue remedy, and provides remarks directed at trial courts’ adherence to guidelines. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Judgment :-

1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court for Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997 Cases, Madurai. The respondent has laid a final report alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 120(B) IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997. Seeking to quash the order of the Special Court taking cognizance of the said offences on the above police report, the petitioners have come up with this petition.

2. I have heard Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Senior counsel for Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.

3. The learned Senior counsel advanced his arguments in this matter at length. At the end, the learned Senior counsel, however, submitted that he does not press for any adjudication in this matter and this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open for the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel on record has made an endorsement not pressing this petition.

4. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed as not pressed, however, giving liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.

5. Before parting with this case, I wish to make the following observations:-

During the course of arguments, the learned Senior counsel brought to my notice that the learned Special Judge, on taking cognizance of the offences, without issuing summons to the accused had straight away issued non bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioners and for their production before the said Court. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the said procedure adopted by the trial Court would amount to deprivation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions and guidelines to the trial Courts as to when and under what circumstances warrant, either bailable or non bailable, could be issued, it often happens in this State that the Subordinate Courts do not follow the same. Having heard the said submissions by a very respectable Senior counsel and the former Public Prosecutor, this Court thought it necessary to call for remarks from the learned Judge, in respect of the above submissions of the learned Senior counsel.

5.1. As called for, the learned Special Judge has submitted his remarks under D.No.523/2015 dated 04.06.2015, wherein, he has stated as follows:

“Therefore, at the time of taking the case on file, this Court issued summons to A1, M/s.Jeevan Emu Care India (P) Ltd., and the accused A2 and A8, namely, V.Rajapandi and Suresh, the offences said to have been committed by the accused are non bailable offences and since the case is triable by following the procedure for trial of warrant cases under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C., he issued non bailable warrant.” (sic)

The learned Judge, having referred Section 204 Cr.P.C., has further stated that since the case is a warrant case, non bailable warrant was issued to secure the accused A3 to A7. This explanation offered by the learned Judge is not convincing.

6. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject. In Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the above issue in detail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.50 to 56 has held as follows:

“Personal liberty and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document