A Magistrate may issue a warrant of arrest even when a revision application is pending unless expressly prohibited by law.

1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against an order dated 22^nd May, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 2^nd Special Court, Calcutta in connection with Company Case No.4 of 2024 thereby issuing warrant of arrest against the present petitioner.

2. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing virtually on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No.2 learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on 27^th March, 2024. Thereby, learned Magistrate had issued summons upon all the accused persons including the present petitioner. In response to the summons, the petitioner appeared and filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The said application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner was turned down by the learned Magistrate concerned, against which the petitioner has preferred a criminal revisional application being No.1304 of 2025.

3. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel submits that on 22^nd May, 2025 when the matter appears before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner seeks an adjournment by filing a specific application. The prayer for adjournment was turned down and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.

4. It is contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya that the order of issuance of warrant of arrest by the learned Magistrate concerned is bad in law since the criminal revision is pending against the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate concerned cannot issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He submits that there are justifications in the instant criminal revision to be entertained. Hence, the criminal revision may be admitted and the warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate be stayed till further order.

5. In support of his contention he cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 6 S.C.R. 86. He referred paragraph

47 of the said judgment as follows :

“47. Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code should not be read in a restricted manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption. Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require. In such cases, the criminal court must act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair, is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law.”

6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant raises objection and submits a report containing, inter alia, that the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court on several occasions in spite of several directions. He submits that such application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been turned down by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner is duty bound to appear before the learned Magistrate.

7. He further submits that the learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in issuance of warrant of arrest against the present pet