THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4690 of 2011 ORDER:- Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the public prosecutor. 2. This petition is filed for quashing the order dated 13.05.2011 of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, passed in C.C.No.10 of 2004 entrusting non-bailable warrants (NBWs) to an Advocate- Commissioner fixing the fee of the Advocate-Commissioner at Rs.5,000/- for its execution. 3. Smt G.Jhansi, the learned counsel for petitioner, says that there are several cases of the petitioner pending in the trial court and in many of those cases the trial court has issued warrants and entrusted the other NBWs to Advocate-Commissioners and the petitioner is financially not in a position to pay the fee of the Advocate-Commissioners. 4. It may be noted that Section 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) reads as follows. 72.Warrants to whom directed.---(1) A warrant of arrest shall ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers; but the Court issuing such a warrant may, if its immediate execution is necessary and no police officer is immediately available, direct it to any other person or persons, and such person or persons shall execute the same. (2) When a warrant is directed to more officers or persons than one, it may be executed by all, or by any one or more of them.” What should be noted is Section 72 Cr.P.C lays down the general rule that a warrant of arrest should ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers and the said section also contemplates a situation where the court can deviate from the above rule and entrust the warrant to others. The impugned order of the trial Court does not show that it has recorded reasons for entrusting the NBWs to an Advocate-Commissioner for their execution. 5. It is true that the impugned order reads that the complainant i.e. the petitioner herein is present and he orally informed that the accused are available but police are not executing the warrants. The trial Court should have enquired into that matter and found out why the police are not executing the warrants issued earlier and instead of doing that the trial court without recording the reasons therefor has issued fresh NBWs and entrusted them to an Advocate-Commissioner for execution even without deciding what should be done. The impugned order does not show that the trial Court has made any such enquiry and exercised such discretion and instead it straightaway entrusted fresh NBWs to the Advocate- Commissioner. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the order of the trial Court cannot be said to be correct in law. 6. A question may however arise whether the order of the trial Court can be set aside without issuing notice to respondents 1 to 3 who are stated to be the accused in C.C.No.10 of 2004 in which the impugned order is passed. 7. It may be noted that the impugned order is passed against the said respondents 1 to 3. Hence it follows that it can be set aside without hearing them. 8. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and the trial Court shall take a decision afresh having regard to the rule laid down in Section 72 of Cr.P.C after hearing the matter. This petition is accordingly allowed at the admission stage in the above terms. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 17th June, 2011 CVRK