THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1780 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.2627 of 2009, 2628 of 2009 and 2629 of 2009 in Summary Trial Case Nos.15 of 2009, 11 of 2009 and 14 of 2009 respectively praying to withdraw the Non Bailable Warrants (N.B.W.s) issued against him. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, Anantapur District, by reason of the common order dismissed the three petitions. One of the grounds for dismissing the petition is that the petitioner himself was not present before the Court when the petition for cancellation of N.B.W.s was filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of this Court in case between Chundru Ammanna Vs Authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, and another[1], wherein it was held that, “it is improper to receive the application filed for cancellation of NBWs and insisting the presence of the accused when a petition is filed to recall the NBWs”. He has also relied on the judgment of case between Bhaskar Industries Limited versus Shivani Denim and Apparels Limited and others[2], wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows. “When a Magistrate feels that insistence of personal attendance of the accused in a summons case, in a particular situation, would inflict enormous hardship and cost to a particular accused, it is open to the Magistrate to consider how he can relieve such an accused of the great hardships, without causing prejudice to the prosecution proceedings”. Ultimately what is required is the presence of the petitioner/accused at the time of trial. The only point that has to be considered is whether the petitioner is ready to face the trial or not? When he himself is appearing before the Court and seeking cancellation of NBWs his intention is to face trial. I feel that a reasonable opportunity should be given to him, without considering as to what has happened previously and why he could not present before the Court on previous occasions. Therefore, I consider it just and reasonable to order as follows. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda. The petitioner is also directed to attend before the Court without fail, whenever his presence is required. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 27-10-2009. DSH [1] 2000 (1) A.L.D. (Criminal) 585 A.P. [2] 2001 (6) Supreme 339.