1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 14.12.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.826 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sekar @ Veerasekar .... Petitioner/Accused No.4 vs. State by Inspector of Police, Puliyampatti Police Station, Thoothukudi District. .... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.8/2009) Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking an order to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1430 of 2011 in S.C.No.67 of 2009 dated 25.08.2011, on the file of the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Parimalam For respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (crl. side) O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 2.The Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.Challenging the order, dated 25.08.2008, made in Cr.M.P.No.1430 of 2011 in S.C.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli, the criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner. 4.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-1 and facing charges under Sections 294(b), 323, 452, 427, 354 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act 2003 and Section 3(1)(x) of SC /ST Act 1989 in S.C.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the Court below, since he was in London on the date of hearing and his counsel did not appear, hence, the Court below issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner/A- 4 and subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to recall the warrant under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure through his counsel. However, the petition was dismissed by the Court below as he had not surrendered before the Court below. Aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the petitioner/A-4. 6.On the aforesaid pleadings, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the revision and to recall the warrant issued by the Court below, without making the petitioner/A4 surrender before the Court below. 7.Learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is in London at present, however, raised his objection to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant, without the surrender of the petitioner/A4. 8.It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/A-4 had filed an application earlier under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with his personal appearance and a conditional order was passed. However, he failed to appear on the date of hearing before the Court below either in person or through counsel. Hence, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him. In the impugned order, the court below has specifically stated that neither the petitioner, nor his counsel was present on the date of hearing and hence, Non Bailable Warrant was issued. Since, the petitioner has violated the conditional order passed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dispensing with his personal appearance. The reason assigned by the petitioner that he was in London and his counsel could not appear before the Court below would not be a legal defence against the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. 9.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a copy of an affidavit attested by a Notary Public in London, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he had joined in a Diploma Course for Administrative Management in January 2010 and after completing his course on 12.02.2011, he got a job in a fast-food chicken shop known as 'Favorite Chicken and Ribs Shop' in London and he has also furnished his passport number. Merely because, the petitioner is working in London, the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him by the Court below on the ground of the non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel could not be recalled without the presence of the petitioner. Hence, I could find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below, in the absence of his appearance before the Court below. Admittedly, as the petitioner as well as his counsel were absent on the date of hearing of the case, Non- Bailable Warrant was issued by the Court below. Hence, I could not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 10.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner can file fresh petition at the appropriate time, when the petitioner/accused returning to India, so as to enable the court below to recall the warrant, for which supporting documents shall also be produced before the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 below and the Court below is directed to consider, if any such petition is filed by the petitioner on merits. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The II Additional District Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai skn ssk/09.01.2012 /3c -3p/- Crl.RC.(MD).No.826 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/