THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7196 of 2009 DATED:09.09.2009 Between: Maddula Gopala Krishna .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderaband and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7196 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the order being passed herein will have no impact on the rights and interests of the second respondent in any manner. The petitioner is facing prosecution in C.C.No.631 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he claims that he was attending before the Court regularly without any default. He claims to be a resident of Visakhapatnam and to have been disabled from attending the Court on 17.04.2009 due to ill health, which he intimated to his counsel through phone. He further claims that the petition filed by him in Crl.M.P.No.654 of 2009 for dispensing with his presence under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed and non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court. He claims that issuance of compulsive process, in spite of giving a valid reason is oppressive and unjust and is not called for, in view of his past submission to the process of the Court throughout. The order in Crl.M.P.No.654 of 2009 shows that the petition was dismissed due to non-mentioning of the nature of illness and not filing any medical certificate and further due to none appearing on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter was taken up throughout the day. The Court appeared to be more annoyed by the cross examination of PW.1 being held up due to the absence of the accused and further due to the absence of any representation on his behalf to proceed with the cross- examination of PW.1 and therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, which resulted in issuance of non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the petitioner. There need be no detailed probe into either the earlier conduct of the petitioner in the criminal case or the reasons for his absence on 17.04.2009, as the fact that the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 17.04.2009 stating about his ill health may itself confirm his claim that he informed his counsel through phone and requested him to file a petition about his sickness disabiling him from travelling from Visakhapatnam to Tanuku for attending the hearing of the case and thus, acted bona fide in making efforts to have the absence condoned through his counsel on the relevant date. The fact that the counsel defaulted in representing the matter before the Court when called, need not put the petitioner to any disadvantage. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and they need not result in oppressive consequences to the parties for any technical lapses. In the light of the petitioner already suffering from ill heath and facing the stress of issuance of non-bailable warrants and the trouble and expense in approaching this Court, this Criminal Petition can be favourably considered. In spite of his default in appearance on 17.04.2009, a reasonable opportunity can be given to him to appear before the trial Court and participate in the further proceedings. Therefore, the orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District in C.C.No.631 of 2006 dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.654 of 2009 and issuing a non-bailable warrant to the petitioner on 17.04.2009 are set aside and the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court within 15 days from today and submit himself to the judicial process and the further proceedings in C.C.No.631 of 2006 and the trial Court shall give him an opportunity to participate accordingly in the trial of the said case. In default of such appearance, the non-bailable warrant already issued against the petitioner shall be executed to secure his presence before the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is ordered. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 9th September 2009 KH