Skip to main content

Recalling of warrant without presence of accused depends on facts

Courts can entertain petitions to recall non-bailable arrest warrants (NBWs) without insisting on the presence of people against whom they had been issued, but it does not mean the practice should be followed invariably in all cases irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.

Justice S. Vimala made the observation while rejecting the plea of Shanmugapandian, an accused in a criminal case, to direct the Valliyoor Judicial Magistrate in Tirunelveli district to recall an NBW without insisting upon his appearance.

The judge said the Magistrate could at most be directed to consider the plea for recall of warrant right on the day when the petitioner surrenders.

She pointed out that the Magistrate was constrained to issue the arrest warrant not only because the petitioner did not appear in the court on a particular day but also because he failed to file an application either under Section 317 or Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the permission of the court to dispense with his appearance on that day.

However, now that the petitioner had given an undertaking to appear before the lower court regularly the judge said that his application for recall of the arrest warrant could be considered on the day of his surrender. Though the counsel for the accused cited a judgment passed by the Principal Seat of the High Court in Chennai in a similar case to drive home his point that presence of the accused was not a sine qua non for recalling arrest warrants, the judge said the ruling could not be applied universally to all cases without considering the facts and circumstances related to every case.

“That judgment (passed by the Principal Seat) is an authority for the proposition that petition to recall the warrant can be entertained without the personal presence of the accused but it is not an authority for the proposition that invariably under all circumstances, irrespective of the conduct of the accused, the proposition can be applied,” Ms. Justice Vimala said.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...