Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14896
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
KOMMISETTY SARASWATHI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
TRIVEDHI SUBRAMANYAM – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 942/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court can recall a Non-Bailable Warrant under unique circumstances, considering the petitioner's situation and prior absence.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The petitioner, while abroad, was unable to appear before the Magistrate. The court recalled the warrant, allowing her to appear. The primary issue was whether the warrants could be recalled under the specific situation, considering the petitioner's circumstances. The court determined that the Non-Bailable Warrant was to be recalled, directing the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate within one week.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of non-bailable warrant issuance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court’s discretion to recall warrants (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. final disposal of revision case (Para 5) |
ORDER
The Criminal Revision case has been filed challenging the order dated
17.04.2025 in issuing Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner/accused who was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act , 1881(for brevity ‘the N.I.Act.,’) by the learned I Additional Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2025 in C.C.No.2956 of 2019.
2. Ms.V.V.N.V.Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused was in abroad. This fact was well within the knowledge of learned Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was convicted,but the sentence of imprisonment was not passed because of the absence of the petitioner/accused. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is ready to surrender before the learned Magistrate, if a reasonable time is given by recalling the NBW issued on 17.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Pala Rahul Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [1Crl.R.C.No.824 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025], wherein this Court recalled the warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate in the similar facts and circumstances.
3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. At the admission stage itself, this case is disposed of in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, issue of notice on Respondent No.1 is no required as the role of Respondent No.1 is limited in Criminal Revision Case for the simple reason that the case before the learned Trial Court is pending for imposition of sentence of imprisonment on the Petitioner. Considering the entire gamut of the case, this Court inclined to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case, considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady, aged about 47 years and she is recently returned from Canada after attending her daughter’s delivery process, the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 17.04.2025 is recalled. The petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned within one week from today. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to take up the C.C.No.2956 of 2019 for its logical conclusion after appearance of the Petitioner. In case the Petitioner failed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate as per this order within one week from today, learned Magistrate may proceed to take steps for securing the presence of the Petitioner, in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
