← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/316/2016disposed of

Joel @ Joel Singh v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-06-06Honourable Dr. Justice P. Devadass2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.06.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Crl.RC(MD) Nos.316 and 320 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4145 and 4202 of 2016 Joel @ Joel Singh ... Petitioner/Respondent in both petitions -vsState Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D., Tirunelveli.

... Respondent/Petitioner in both petitions PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petitions are filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.966 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.30 of 2012 and Cr.M.P. No.967 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.3 of 2016 respectively dated 22.04.2016.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Christenson Jugunu For Respondent :

Mrs.S.Prabha Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER Cases are different, but not the accused and the points involved. So, single order.

2.Petitioner is being prosecuted in the two cases registered by the Civil Supplies C.I.D. The Cases are of the year 2012. He seems to have forgotten the Court, but not the Court. So, NBW has been issued. However, in view of his back history, the Trial Court refused to recall the NBWs.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been attacked with paralysis. But the progress of the case cannot be paralysed. He cannot be allowed to derail the trial. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of certain reasons beyond his control, he had failed to mark his presence in the trial Court. He will cooperate for the early disposal of the case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.In the circumstances, it is ordered as under:

(1) The impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.966 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.30 of 2012 and in Cr.M.P. No.967 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.3 of 2016 are set aside.

(2) Surrender of the accused or presence of the accused as a condition precedent to recall the N.B.Ws shall not be insisted upon.

(3) The learned Magistrate is directed to restore the recall petitions and recall the NBWs.

(4) However, for every effective hearing, as and when so ordered by the Magistrate, the petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate.

(5) In default, the learned Magistrate will enforce his attendance by taking coercive action, unless his absence on a particular day is condoned on a petition by the learned Magistrate.

Accordingly, these Criminal Revision petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli.

3.The Additional Public prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D.,Tirunelveli.

+2cc to Mr.D.Christenson Jugunu,Advocate Sr.No.28069,28070 sj AA/DB/13.06.2016/2p-7c Crl.RC(MD) Nos.316 and 320 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4145 and 4202 of 2016 06.06.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/