HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.10072, 10073 AND 10075 OF 2010 Date: 26-10-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10072 OF 2010 Between: Pala Simhadri. --- Petitioner/A-2. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10073 OF 2010 Between: Pala Simhadri. --- Petitioner/A-2. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10075 OF 2010 Between: Pala Simhadri. --- Petitioner/A-2. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.10072, 10073 AND 10075 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed by the Petitioner/A-2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the Non Bailable Warrants issued against him in Sessions Case Nos.161, 160 and 162 of 2007, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’). Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A-2 in three cases and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. Earlier the petitioner filed three Criminal Revision Cases 161, 162 and 163 of 2009, seeking to dispense with his personal attendance before the trial Court on the ground that he is physically handicapped and he is not able to travel long distance of 600 kilometers from Kurnool to Yelamanchili, to face trial in S.C. NOs.160, 161 and 162 of 2007 at the Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Yelamanchili. Learned single judge of this Court, by his common order in the above Crl.R.C.s, dated 09-02-2009 held that, the petitioner has not filed any petition to dispense with his presence before the trial court, he may file a petition before the trial Court seeking to dispense with his presence during trial without disputing his identity and he should be personally present at the time of filing such petition to enable the trial Court to observe his physical condition and the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on the basis of his physical condition. Subsequently, on 27-08-2010 an application was filed on his behalf and on behalf of the remaining accused to dispense with their personal attendance on the ground that they were unable to attend the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge at Yelamanchili as they attended the Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court at Kovooru on the same day in connection with some other case. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and NBWs were issued against the petitioner and others on the ground that they are habitual offenders. These Criminal Petitions are filed to recall the NBWs issued against the petitioner. In the first place, it is relevant to notice that the petitioner did not comply with the direction in the common order passed by the learned single Judge in Crl.R.C. NOs.161, 162 and 163 of 2009, dated 09-02-2009. He was not present at the time of filing an application before the trial Court to dispense with his personal attendance on 27-08-2010. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the learned Sessions Judge, violated the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the above-referred Criminal Revision Cases. Further, whenever an NBW was issued, the remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the court concerned which issued the NBW and file an application under Section 70 (2) of Cr.P.C. and the Court which issued the NBW can grant the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Directly making an application before this Court by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to recall the NBWs issued against the petitioner by the lower Court, is nothing but abuse of process of law. These three Criminal Petitions are accordingly, dismissed. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 26-10-2010 Dsh.