IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6471 OF 2009 Between: M/s. IPCA Laboratories Limited, Sajavta Rotlam, Madhya Pradesh, Rep. By its Managing Director, Mr. M.R. Chandunkar and another. ..... PETITIONERS. AND The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad, and another. ..... RESPONDENTS. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the Order in Crl. M.P. No.3144 of 2009 in C.C. No.1775 of 2005 dated 29-06-2009 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of both the respondents, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6471 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public prosecutor for both the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Order dated 29-06- 2009 of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No.1775 of 2005 dismissing the Crl. M.P. No.3144 of 2009 and directing issuance of Non Bailable Warrants to the accused/petitioners 1 and 2 herein. The certified copy of the docket proceedings shows that after service of summons on the accused 1 and 2, both the accused were mostly absent before the Court but, their absence was mostly condoned on applications for the purpose. Again, even after the matter has become part heard, the accused continued to default in regular attendance before the Court and obviously vexed with the refusal of the learned counsel for the accused even to cross-examine PW.2, the trial Court dismissed the Criminal M.P. No.3144 of 2009 filed for condonation of the absence of the accused on the ground that he is held up at Bombay on official work. The trial court of course, cannot be considered unjustified either in dismissing the said application or issuing Non Bailable Warrants against both the accused for that reason. However, Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, assures this Court that the accused would regularly appear before the Court, during the dates of hearing hereafter and will not commit any default and that a final opportunity may be given to them to submit themselves to the judicial process without any fear of being apprehended and detained in execution of the Non Bailable Warrants. In the light of the solemn assurance of the learned counsel, a last opportunity can be given to the accused in the interests of Justice to appear before the trial Court as earlier. Therefore, the Non Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioners in C.C. No.1775 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are recalled and the petitioners are permitted to appear before the said Court on the next date of hearing of the said case as earlier and the trial Court may permit them to participate in the proceedings to defend themselves as earlier. The Criminal petition is ordered accordingly. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-08-2009. Dsh.