THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.155 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner/Accused is facing trial in C.C.No.388 of 2007 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As the petitioner was absent on 19.07.2010 and there was no representation on his behalf, the II Metropolitan Magistrate issued Non- Bailable Warrant against the petitioner on 19.07.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1351 of 2010 in C.C.No.388 of 2007 under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the N.B.W issued against him on 19.07.2010. The Magistrate, by his order dated 08.12.2010, dismissed the recall petition. Against the said order, the present criminal revision case is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was advised bed rest, the petitioner was not present before the Court below on 19.07.2010. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner obtained interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.388 of 2007. Having perused the record placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are baseless. It is a fact that the proceedings in C.C.No.388 of 2007 were stayed only for a period of four weeks and thereafter the said interim order was not extended. Further, it is clear that as on the date of issuing Non-Bailable warrant against the petitioner, the order of interim stay of the proceedings in the said CC.No.388 of 2007 was not in force. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the medical certificate produced by the petitioner was to the effect that the petitioner was advised bed rest from 17.07.2010 to 10.08.2010, and that it was issued by a competent doctor. But, this does not mean that there should not be any representation before the Court below when the matter was called. Either the counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused should have appeared or an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. to dispense with the presence of the petitioner should have been filed before the Court below on the date of his absence. But, no such steps were taken by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Court below was pleased to issue N.B.W against the petitioner. Thereafter, even when the petitioner filed the present application on 13.08.2010, to recall the N.B.W. pending against him, the petitioner did not appear on that day also even though the bed rest advised by the doctor was over by 10.08.2010. Further, the petitioner was also not present on 08.12.2010, the day when the impugned order was passed. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that it cannot be said that the Court below erred in passing the impugned order, and I find no merits in this petition. However, as the petitioner expressed his willingness to appear before the Court below and file recall petition, this Court is the view that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, on or before 10.02.2011, and file an application to recall the non-bailable warrant pending against him, and on such application to be filed by the petitioner, the Court below shall consider the same and recall the non-bailable warrant pending against the petitioner on the same day. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, disposed of. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 29.01.2011 Note: Issue CC by 31.01.2011 B/o v v