IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6823 of 2009 Between: V. Narayana Reddy .. Petitioner AND The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent 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 recall the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in C.C. No.1010 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as renumbered as C.C. No.61 of 2008 on the file of the XVII 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 Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. The learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dismissed Criminal M.P. No.1380 of 2009 in C.C. No.61 of 2008 on 21-08-2009, aggrieved by which, the present criminal petition is filed. The accused/petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the non-bailable warrant issued against him is pending since 07-02-2005. The petitioner claimed to be ill in August, 2009 and applied for cancellation/recall of the non-bailable warrant. The learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court relied on the precedents referred to in the impugned order, but the learned Judge found that even after personal service of summons, the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 07-02-2005; since then, the non-bailable warrant is pending against him. The learned Judge further found that the appearance of the petitioner before the Court is essential for recalling of the warrant and as he did not appear even after the petition on the ground of ill-health, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner contends that he never received the summons and that he paid a substantial sum of Rs.35,00,000/- already out of the subject matter of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He requested for recall of the non-bailable warrant and assures to submit himself to the process of the Court forthwith. It is true that the conduct of the petitioner as extracted in the impugned order neither indicates any diligence on his part nor any implicit obedience to the judicial process. It is also true that the trial Court is not unjustified in refusing to show any leniency by recalling the warrant in view of the personal service of summons on the petitioner for the hearing on 07-02-2005 and his continued non-appearance even till after filing the petition. However, the compulsive process provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure is only intended to ensure the appearance of accused before criminal Courts and smooth progress in the enquiries or trails before the Courts. Though the petitioner appears to deserve no great sympathy, in view of the nature of the offence concerning monetary transactions and in the light of the petitioner claiming to have paid a substantial sum out of the subject matter of the criminal case and his assurance to submit himself to judicial process without default, a final opportunity can be given to him, which, if unavailed, will naturally lead to permissible adverse action against him by the trial Court to secure his submission to the judicial proceedings. The petitioner can, thus, be permitted to appear before the trial Court and participate in further proceedings subject to any bond, which the trial Court may obtain from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear in person within fifteen (15) days from today before the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No.61 of 2008 on its file and on such appearance, the trial Court may obtain appropriate personal bond from the petitioner with or without sureties for an amount considered appropriate in exercise of the judicial discretion of the trial Court, to ensure his future attendance before the Court till the finality of the criminal proceedings. Till then, the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance and on compliance, the non-bailable warrant shall be recalled. In default, the non-bailable warrant shall be executed against the petitioner as ordered by the trial Court. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-08-2009 Svv