THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7622, 7628 and 7629 of 2009 DATED:17.09.2009 Between: M/s.Luminus Energy Pvt. Limited, Luminus House, Anita, Near Grant Hyatt, Vakola Santacrust (East),Mumbai rep., by its Executive Director and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7622,7628 and 7629 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three petitions, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent in all the three petitions. The second respondent is stated to be only a formal party and in any view the orders being passed herein do not in any way touch upon the rights and interests of the second respondent. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in all the three cases and entered appearance through their counsel before the trial Court on 01.07.2009, on which day, by separate petitions, their absence was condoned by the trial Court. The trial Court directed in all the three cases respectively, accused Nos.1 and 2 to furnish two sureties for Rs.20,000/- by 27.08.2009. On 27.08.2009, again petitions were filed for dispensing with the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, which were dismissed, as no proof in support of the contents of the petitions was furnished and as sureties were also not furnished. Then, accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the petitions for recall of non bailable warrants issued against them. In the orders, which are in question respectively in these three petitions, the trial Court opined that even if accused Nos.1 and 2 were unable to be physically present on 27.08.2009, they could have shown their bona fides by producing the sureties on that day. The trial Court also felt that, as the delivery of a son by the second accused was on 05.06.2009, she could have been physically present on 27.08.2009 after more than two months after the delivery. Therefore, disagreeing with the submissions of accused Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court dismissed the petitions for recalling the warrants. The petitioners claimed herein that the second petitioner had the delivery of a boy at the age of 42 years and that too after a surgery and therefore, her health condition was not normal even after lapse of considerable time. The petitioners further claim that in view of the prevalence of Swine Flu at Mumbai and Pune, the doctors advised the second petitioner and the infant boy not to travel anywhere, to avoid infection. They, therefore, requested for recalling of the non-bailable warrants claiming their absence to be not wilful or wanton. Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while admitting the absence of diligence on the part of the petitioners in at least complying with the orders of the trial Court for furnishing the sureties, requested for taking a sympathetic view particularly because of the health condition of the second petitioner and her infant son. Though, it is true that the conduct of accused Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court in all the three cases is not any reflection of implicit obedience to the judicial process, their absence on 01.07.2009 and 27.08.2009 had some explicable reason in respect of the second accused, who also represents the first accused as the Executive Director of the Company, which did not find favour with the trial Court, and though accused Nos.1 and 2 have not produced the sureties before the trial Court as directed on 27.08.2009 notwithstanding the inability of the second accused to physically present before the Court, such default need not necessarily lead to disbelieving the problems of health being allegedly faced by the second petitioner and her infant son due to the delivery of the boy by the second petitioner at the age of 42 years. The second accused had already undergone sufficient stress and agony for her default in the shape of having to face the threat of being apprehended in execution of non-bailable warrants issued on 27.08.2009 till now and as rules of procedure are only intended to be handmaids of justice and not to punish the parties with any severe results for any technical lapses or indiscretions or insignificant deviations from compliance with the orders of the Courts, the second accused can be reasonably given one more opportunity of submitting herself to the judicial process without the threat of being apprehended or detained. Her gender and the necessity to take care of the infant boy, who is stated to be very weak and the requirement to take care of her own health, may be factors which persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to intervene in the matter to secure the ends of justice, though it should be made clear that the orders passed by the trial Court are not without jurisdiction. Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cases are posted before the trial Court on 22.09.2009. Therefore, the non-bailable warrants issued by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.Nos.308, 309 and 310 of 2009 on his file against the second accused therein for herself and representing the first accused shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing of all these cases on 22.09.2009 and the second accused shall appear in person before the trial Court on the said date and execute a personal bond with two sureties for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court as already ordered by the trial Court. On such appearance and execution of such bonds with sureties as directed by the trial Court, the non-bailable warrants already issued shall be recalled. The Criminal Petitions are ordered accordingly. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th September 2009 KH