IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C..No. 1349 of 2011 Between: Kakollu Nageswara Rao …Petitioner and The State of AP …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No. 1349 of 2011 Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 281 of 2008 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, Nellore District questioning the order passed by the said court issuing NBW against him. The plea of the petitioner is that he was not served with summons at all and despite the same the court has issued NBW. The petitioner’s counsel has also filed certified copy of the docket order dated:3-6-2010 and 21-09-2010 and it is on this latter date, the NBW was issued to the petitioner. Both the docket orders read as follows: Docket proceedings dated:03-06-2010 Bench clerk note: Trial A/SS. Order of the Judge Accused SS unserved but notice given to accused counsel. For trial call on 19-08-2010. Docket proceedings dated:21-09-2010 Bench clerk note: Trial LWs 1 to 20 A/s. Order of the Judge: Accused called absent. Notice given to the counsel. Heard. Issue NBW to accused. LWs 1 to 3 summons unserved 14.12.2010. 3. It may be noted that the docket order dated:03-06-2010 of the learned Magistrate would show that summons were not served on the accused, but he gave notice to the counsel for the accused and posted the matter to 19.8.2010. Of-course, the docket order passed on 19.8.2010 is not filed. It may then be noted that a perusal of the docket order dated:21-09-2010 would show that on the said date also the accused was absent, but the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue NBW as notice was already given to his counsel. This in my opinion is not a correct approach and the learned Public Prosecutor who has been heard is unable to justify this order. It should be noted that when the matter is still at the stage of appearance of the accused, the court has got a duty to see whether the summons issued were served on the accused and actually find out whether summons have been served and if the summons have been served, the court can proceed to issue NBW when the accused is absent and when there is no representation for him. It is seen that this procedure has not been followed by the court below and it proceeded to issue NBW without verifying whether the summons were served or not but proceeded to issue NBW on the ground that notice was given to counsel. It is also not understandable as to which counsel was representing the accused when the matter was still at the stage of his appearance in the case. In these circumstances, the above docket order shows that the court below did not follow the correct procedure before issuing the NBW. 4. Accordingly the impugned order dated:21—09—2010 is set aside. The petitioner/accused shall can now appear before the learned Magistrate on 14—07—2011 and he shall accordingly execute bonds for his appearance as ordered by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the court can go ahead with the enquiry or trial as the case may be. 5. This revision case is accordingly allowed in the above terms at the admission stage. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 28, 2011. *BVS